Nebraskans Buzzing About Bob Kerrey

by: Ronaldo

Fri Jan 27, 2012 at 22:19:30 PM CST

Everybody I've talked to is sitting on the edge of their seats waiting for Kerrey's announcement.  The Democrats and Independents I talk to would be thrilled with a Kerrey candidacy.  Kerrey brings a certain star power to Nebraska politics and his entry into the race would make Nebraska one of the marquee U.S. Senate races this year.  It would rank right up there with the Senate race in Massachusetts between Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren and incumbent Republican Senator Scott Brown.

On the other hand, the vibe I've received from Republicans is that they dread a Kerrey candidacy.  They know deep down inside that that their weak field of candidates can't beat Kerrey.  Jon Bruning is bedeviled by questions surrounding his numerous conflicts of interest and his sudden, unexplained vast wealth.  State Treasurer Don "Quixote" Stenberg is making his fourth run for the U.S. Senate and is fast becoming the Harold Stassen of Nebraska politics.  State Senator Deb Fischer is largely unknown and lacks the ability to raise enough money to wage a competitive campaign.  It's no wonder that out of state groups run by Karl Rove and funded by billionaires are already running ads against Kerrey.

The Republicans are so desperate to scare Kerrey out of the race that they financed a largely bogus poll we discussed here that vastly over sampled Republicans.  Around 55% of the sample were Republicans.  In contrast, the Nebraska GOP conducted their own poll in December 2011 and their sample consisted of 46% Republicans.  Our analysis here at New Nebraska indicated that if Magellan Strategies had used a sample similar to the Nebraska GOP poll, Kerrey would be in a dead heat with Bruning and Stenberg.  That is a remarkable showing since Kerrey has been largely out of the public eye here in Nebraska for ten years and his potential Republican rivals have been running high profile, nearly non-stop election campaigns since at least the beginning of the 2010 election cycle.

The Republicans have been making a big deal out of the fact that Kerrey hasn't lived in Nebraska since 2001.  In my opinion, the GOP is being hypocritical in raising this "carpetbagger" issue.  When Tom Osborne first ran for Congress in the 3rd Congressional District in 2000, he had been a resident of Lincoln and the 1st Congressional District since the early 1960s.  Nevertheless, Osborne considered himself a citizen of the 3rd Congressional District the same as he considered himself a citizen of any other part of the state.  Apparently, Nebraska Republicans agreed with him since they didn't raise any objections to his residence status and because he was overwhelmingly elected to the House of Representatives in 2000.

In a recent interview with the Omaha World Herald, Kerrey confidently stated, "I'll always be a Nebraskan."  As we all know, Kerrey grew up in Lincoln, was educated in Nebraska and set up a series of successful businesses in Lincoln and Omaha.  With the exception of the three years Kerrey spent serving our country in Vietnam, he has spent the vast majority of his life in Nebraska.  (Kerrey has certainly spent a much higher percentage of his adult life in Nebraska than did former Senator Chuck Hagel.)  Kerrey still owns two businesses in Nebraska and pays property taxes in the state.  As Kerrey said, "I could relocate to Beijing, China, and die after several years, and I'd die a Nebraskan."

Bob Kerrey could certainly offer something unique to Nebraska and the entire country.  He served our country with incredible heroism in Vietnam where he earned a Congressional Medal of Honor when many other people stayed home. In his stint in the U.S. Senate, Kerrey voted for the then controversial 1993 Clinton economic program.  Every Republican predicted that this package of tax increases and spending cuts would cause a recession and instead we saw the greatest peacetime economic boom in U.S. history.  Approximately 22 million jobs were created between 1993 and 2001.  (In contrast, only 3 million jobs were created during the Bush Administration.)  Kerrey's service on the 9/11 Commission certainly gives him the necessary national security credentials to be an effective U.S. Senator.

My message to Bob Kerrey is that most Nebraskans would welcome you back with open arms and would be willing to support your candidacy.  Your country and your state need you.  Come back to Nebraska.  As you know, this is a great place to work and live.  

A Legislative Agenda For A New Nebraska: The Grand Finale

by: Kyle Michaelis

Wed Jan 25, 2012 at 00:55:37 AM CST

There are many progressive battles that need waging in our world, our nation, and our communities as we continue our long and frustratingly slow march forward.  I'm not claiming to encompass all of those.  This list has been dedicated specifically to the state of Nebraska.  It's a statewide, state-specific agenda submitted for readers' consideration, their response, and - who knows - maybe even some action as we work to establish a new identity and win back our state.

Which brings us to our thrilling conclusion . . .

Legislative Agenda For A New Nebraska
Issue #8: Create A Consumer-Focused Health Insurance Exchange
I don't need to belabor this point.  Gov. Dave Heineman has, for the second time, endorsed a man for president whose signature policy achievement is a state-run health insurance exchange.  Through the 2009 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Heineman has asked for and received millions of dollars in federal funding to plan Nebraska's own health insurance exchange.  Still, Heineman continues to drag his feet and oppose the state's moving forward with that planning until an anticipated late-June decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the legislation's constitutionality.  Such delay jeopardizes the state's receiving tens of millions of dollars for implementing and getting its exchange off the ground.

Even should current deadlines be pushed back, there is little objective reason for delay beyond Heineman's loyalty to his party's far-right political and ideological agenda.  In fact, State Senator Jeremy Nordquist's "Nebraska Health Benefit Exchange Act" (LB835) makes specific allowances for health care reform's repeal or nullification by the Supreme Court.  Regardless, the proposed framework promises to succeed in its primary intent of increasing access to quality affordable health care coverage while providing greater choice and more transparency.  It's the right idea for Nebraska.  That's why - despite all the politics involved - Nordquist's bill has been able to attract 10 cosponsors - including newly-independent State Senator Brad Ashford and Republican State Senators Kathy Campbell, Mike Gloor and Galen Hadley.

Nordquist's bill provides for an 11-member governing board within the state Department of Insurance that will be responsible for managing the exchange.  Questions had previously been raised about whether this board would be able to place the interests of consumers first under the auspices of an industry-friendly Department of Insurance.  I'm confident that a board with the right make-up could still provide that focus and maintain its independence.  However, this is an area where Nordquist's bill could still use some work.  His board has eight voting members - three representing individual consumers, one representing small business consumers, two representing health care providers, one representing insurance carriers, and one representing insurance agents.  That splits votes evenly between consumers and industry.  Just one additional vote from an advocate for low-income Nebraskans served by Medicaid would go a long way adding confidence in the board with a much needed voice in its decision-making.

Of course, the important thing for progressives to remember is that the real work of health care reform doesn't end upon the creation of our state exchange.  It falls on us to remain ever-vigilant defending its purpose, advancing its goals, and ensuring that people are always placed ahead of profits.  Unfortunately, this is a responsibility in which we have sometimes failed - particularly when the budget-cutting axe has come down on vital health services for Nebraska's poor and disabled.  We haven't always been an effective voice for the voiceless.  With health care reform in place, we have the opportunity to right many past wrongs and improve the most care for the most people.  But, that's not going to happen if we don't follow through and continue the fight.

Issue #9: Redirect Property Tax Credit To Nebraska Homeowners
Since 2007, Nebraska's property tax credit has been a public policy abomination.  Already in May of that year, I complained, "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."  NNN has since provided numerous reasons why this poorly-crafted and insulting giveaway should have been allowed to expire.  Yet, with each passing year and each successive budget crisis, we've instead seen this pot of free state money that serves no clear purpose besides padding our elected officials' political support become further entrenched as Nebraska's very own "Ted Turner Entitlement."

It was never supposed to be this way.  The original proposals from which this tax credit was born were all focused on relieving the property tax burden on middle-class families and homeowners.  That purpose was forsaken in the name of a cheap compromise struck as a temporary measure - which is now treated as inviolable under the cowardly impression that any change would be perceived as a tax hike.  Yes, Gov. Heineman has made that argument and no doubt will again, but the facts would speak for themselves as soon as middle-class families saw how much more they stood to benefit from a plan that actually served a legitimate state interest, such as keeping people in their homes.

Two bills offered in this year's legislative session should provide an opportunity to revisit this debate.  State Senators Heath Mello and Annette Dubas have introduced separate bills for a "Property Tax Relief Act." (Yes, they have the same name.) Mello's LB 977 specifically targets homeowners by providing a "homestead exemption" on the first $8,000 in a home's value.  This is expected to save the average Nebraska homeowner $150 per year.  Dubas's LB 1011 casts a wider net providing a refundable tax credit that would be capped at $4,000 and would be based on the amount of property taxes paid as a percentage of household income.  This is commonly referred to as a circuit-breaker and would be far superior to the indirect and regressive rebate currently in place.

Right now, these Property Tax Relief Acts appear to be offered as alternatives to Heineman's plan for cutting corporate and income tax rates. Each is worth discussing in that regard - particularly so long as Heineman's promise of middle-class tax relief remains nothing more than cover for deeper cuts benefitting no one but the wealthiest Nebraskans.  That said, a progressive restructuring of our state's income tax absolutely should be a priority. The strongest argument for Mello and Dubas's property tax plans is as the progressive alternative to our current "Ted Turner Entitlement", which is indefensible and demands overdue reform.

Issue #10: Elect County Offices On Nonpartisan Ballot
Last year, Prairie Fire ran an excellent story by Randall Moody suggesting Nebraska adopt open primary elections from which the top two candidates would emerge at every level of elected office.  It's an interesting concept, but Moody lost credibility when he claimed "Republican Gov. Dave Heineman would seem a likely supporter of such a change" based on statements he'd previously made decrying the lack of competition in statewide elections as bad for our political system.  Moody should know that was less a statement of principle than a jab at the Nebraska Democratic Party for failing to put up stronger candidates.  The truth is Heineman wouldn't support any change to our elections that might weaken or threaten the Republican Party's virtual lockhold on power.  Heineman rose the ranks and is a product of the GOP establishment. Its interests have remained closest to Heineman's heart since his very first day as governor.

Still, I do believe a less drastic change is possible and would benefit the people of Nebraska, particularly in the rural parts of our state.  While most district and local elections are conducted on a nonpartisan ballot, county government continues to be elected through partisan primaries, with that "D" or "R" too often the deciding factor in November.  For many offices where there isn't a candidate from both parties, this results in no contest at all - not even a choice - in the general election.  The primary decides the winner.  Anyone who wants to have a say in who that will be has little choice but to stay registered in that one dominant party.  This is a self-perpetuating cycle that injects needless partisanship into county government, contrary to the principles that guide the legislature and most of our local offices.  Even worse, the system stands in the way of every voter having a say in who represents them in county government.

Making the election of all county and city officials nonpartisan would serve the public interest and be in keeping with the finest traditions in Nebraska politics.  It just so happens that a bill to do so was introduced in the Legislature just last year (LB 214), and it was even introduced by a Republican.  Unfortunately, that State Senator - Dave Pankonin of Louisville - has since resigned and been replaced with a less independent-minded Heineman appointee.  Nevertheless, the bill remains before the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee, and I'd love to see it championed by a new State Senator and brought to the floor for full debate.

Yes, those whose motives and loyalties are partisan are bound to oppose this proposal.  But, we've already seen a Republican State Senator acknowledge the problem and offer a solution behind which every Nebraska progressive should be able to get behind.  This isn't about political power.  It's about what works best for Nebraskans and what best represents our ideals.  Nonpartisanship has worked for the Legislature - despite threats from Heineman's immense influence at the dawning of term limits. Nonpartisanship makes even more sense at the local level and will work even better for county government.

Every reader has his or her own priorities that would differ from the above.  You may not even agree with some or all that's been proposed.  Personally, there are a lot of issues important to me - ranging from ending the death penalty to eliminating the education achievement gap for racial minorities - that just barely missed this list or didn't seem appropriate as stricly "progressive" priorities.  You are welcome to argue to the contrary and offer your own alternatives.  I hope that you will.

While Ben Nelson Uses Influence To Help Nebraska, Jon Bruning Only Helps Himself

by: Ronaldo

Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 14:47:27 PM CST

On Nov. 30, a representative of the Farm Bureau's We Support Ag group emailed the grant application to Katie Spohn, special counsel to the attorney general, and chief deputy attorney general David Cookson. Jay Rempe of the Nebraska Farm Bureau called it a "draft application" because the grant application was missing some expense information. Rempe said he'd get that financial information to the attorney general soon and apologized for the generalities in the application.  Rempe wrote: "Please review and I am certainly open to any changes to make the application more acceptable."

Apparently, the incomplete grant application wasn't an obstacle, because a mere 32 minutes after receiving the application, Spohn had already emailed a request for a $100,000 check, saying Bruning had approved the grant and indicating it would be presented at the Farm Bureau annual convention five days later.  It also needs to be noted that AG Bruning rejected his chief environmental attorney's recommendation that the farm group only get a $25,000 grant. Within a half hour of receiving the incomplete and sloppy grant application, he decided to instead award the politically influential Farm Bureau the full $100,000 they'd requested.

As of today's date, the Farm Bureau has not decided yet whether it will make an endorsement in the Nebraska Republican Senate primary.  I would advise the Farm Bureau against endorsing Jon Bruning because that would certainly feed the growing impression that Bruning has tried to purchase the group's endorsement.  If the Farm Bureau were to endorse Bruning, it would be a tainted endorsement and just the sort of political special deal that the American people have tired of.  The Farm Bureau should either endorse one of Bruning's rivals or make no endorsement at all. A Farm Bureau endorsement would badly damage the group's reputation since it would provide evidence that it had sold it's endorsement to Jon Bruning and that he'd bought it with public money.

On a different and more positive front, we would also like to mention that late last year, Senator Ben Nelson passed through the U.S. Senate the $1 billion headquarters project for the U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base. On December 1, 2011, the U.S. Senate approved full authorization of a new headquarters for U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base, as the Senate passed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act by a vote of 93 to 7.

"I'm very pleased that a new modern facility for STRATCOM is on the brink of becoming a reality. This is a victory for our national security and a victory for Nebraska," said Senator Nelson, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee. "This project will create jobs, replace an aging, outdated facility with a 21st Century high-tech command center to oversee America's nuclear and non-nuclear forces, and protect us from the rapidly emerging threat of cyber-warfare."  

During the anticipated four-year construction, the Air Force estimates 400 people will be employed building the new STRATCOM headquarters, with an additional 100 jobs associated with support efforts.  "This is important because those jobs will help Nebraska's economy, our communities, many small businesses, and hundreds of Nebraska families," Nelson said. "Moreover, today STRATCOM's operations support 1,689 civilian and military jobs. They are expected to grow once the new headquarters is complete, as STRATCOM meets its varied 21st Century mission."

In today's Omaha World Herald, Senator Mike Johanns said that Nelson played the key role in lining up legislative approval for the new headquarters.  Johanns correctly noted that now that Senator Nelson is retiring at the end of the year, he and other members of Nebraska's Congressional delegation will need to play a larger role in making sure that the STRATCOM project secures the necessary follow up funding.  "I need Sen. Nelson's notes before he leaves," Johanns said.

I commend Senator Nelson for securing the funding for this project that will create and save thousands of jobs in Nebraska - as well as keeping our nation at peace and secure.  I would also like to compliment Senator Johanns for correctly pointing out Senator Nelson's key role and his willingness to follow through to make sure the project is completed.  

Senator Nelson's instrumental role in securing funding for new headquarters for U.S. Strategic Command at Offutt Air Force Base demonstrates once again his ability to work across party lines to accomplish an important objective that will help Nebraskans and all Americans.  I would also like to mention that very reliable and well placed officials at Nelson's office have told me that Senator Nelson put off his decision on whether or not to run for re-election until after he had secured funding for the STRATCOM headquarters.  Nelson was genuinely torn about whether or not to seek re-election and he was of the belief that if he had announced early that he wasn't running for re-election, he would have been a lame duck.  Being a lame duck would've made it much less likely that Nelson could've secured the bipartisan support for this vital project.  

I hope my Democratic friends here appreciate that there was a rational reason for Senator Nelson not making his decision on seeking re-election until late last year.  He was putting Nebraska first, as he always has.  Jon Bruning should try that some time rather than once again abusing public office for his own benefit - as noted above and on so many prior occasions.

In any event, there is still plenty of time for a good Democratic Senate candidate to make an announcement of his/her candidacy and run a strong race for the open Senate seat here in Nebraska.  I expect a competitive and well financed Democratic Senate nominee this year.  I'm confident that all of my Democratic and Progressive friends will work hard to elect a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in Nebraska this year.

A Legislative Agenda For A New Nebraska: Public Power & Redistricting

by: Kyle Michaelis

Wed Jan 18, 2012 at 22:19:55 PM CST

Legislative Agenda For A New Nebraska
Issue #6: Force Public Power To Look To The Future
Public power is an issue to which NNN has never devoted enough attention. This state's system of all-public electricity providers is, in theory, one of the greatest testaments to Nebraska's progressive spirit.  However, in practice, that spirit has been all-but-killed by decades of leadership devoted primarily to maintaining the status quo.  In this case, it just so happens that the "status quo" threatens our state, our nation, and our world.  Still, our power providers have categorically refused to face that challenge and ensure that our state lives up to its responsibilities to future generations. In fact, we've seen them actively work against the public interest.

Inflexible.  Short-sighted.  Entrenched.  Where did these public entitites go so terribly wrong?  In many ways, they simply reflect our larger failings as a society.  That shouldn't surprise when each has a board that's elected or that's appointed by someone who was.  By assuming a very limited mandate centered around cost control, consumers have saved money and voters have been lulled into complacency.  But, at what cost?  While Nebraskans have benefitted from our Public Power Districts' singular focus, we will ultimately suffer for their lack of leadership and vision - and that suffering WILL include higher costs.

Of course, public power can point to efforts promoting efficiency and beginning the transition to more renewable energy.  But, it's not enough.  It's nowhere close.  A new report on their sustainability efforts shows that most progress has been limited to those projects for which federal funding has been available - much of which is drying up.  As the only state in the country with 100% public power, Nebraska has the potential to be at the very forefront in sustainability but has instead followed only where led by the federal government.

We've lagged even more terribly in terms of innovation.  Here, the conservative leanings of our Congressmen and Public Power leaders betrayed the state as they've neglected to fight for comparable incentives for pursuing renewable energy as those enjoyed by private companies.  We've allowed public power to be a disadvantage - never minding the lost opportunity from years of falling farther behind because its cost couldn't be understood in simple dollars and cents.  To his credit, Senator Ben Nelson did make a late push for some parity for public providers investing in renewable energy, but it hasn't been a sustained effort and hasn't had enough support from NPPD & Co. to force our Republican Congressmen to fully get on board.

So, what's to be done to actually fix this problem?  The Nebraska Legislature can do a lot of things by statute to reconnect public power to the public good.  State Senators Ken Haar and Heath Mello have already made some progress in this regard, passing legislation that promotes sustainability and takes baby steps towards fulfilling our state's wind energy potential.  There's a lot more to be done along these lines.

The other major battlefield is in our local elections, where Nebraskans have to start electing leaders who are not only willing to challenge the status quo but also understand that our future may depend upon it.  Bold Nebraska has recently embarked upon a campaign to "Put The Public Back In Public Power," which will include voter education.  This is an absolutely fantastic idea that should have every progressive Nebraskans' full support.  I only regret that it did not begin years ago.

Issue #7: Remove Politics From Redistricting
I shared my thoughts on the failings of the Nebraska Legislature's 2011 redistricting here.  From there, it's easy to make the case for removing the self-serving and overtly partisan considerations that dominate the process.  Luckily, I don't even have to make that case because our state's two largest newspapers have both identified the problem and offered the same solution from their editorial page.

Lincoln Journal-Star

"Nebraska Republicans have wasted little energy trying to convince anyone that their redistricting plans are intended to serve the overarching public good.  Probably because it's so obvious that they intended to blatantly, shamelessly do everything they could to benefit the Republican Party."

Omaha World-Herald

"Over the decades, redistricting in Nebraska is one issue that has brought out raw partisan maneuvering in what is officially a nonpartisan Legislature. Nebraskans this year would do well to take inspiration from Iowa. Its leaders have just demonstrated that even something as politically delicate as redistricting need not trigger a partisan meltdown and, when done right, can serve a state's best overall interest."

Lincoln Journal-Star

"A better system exists just across the border in Iowa. In contrast to the complaints by Democrats in Nebraska that the Republicans ran over them like a steamroller, members of both parties pronounced themselves happy with the results of redistricting in Iowa....Maps are drawn by the nonpartisan Legislative Service Agency without any political or election data, including the addresses of incumbents, striving to create districts that are compact and equal in population. Then, the Legislature votes and the governor signs....

"It may be unlikely that the dominant party would be willing to give up its advantage in states like Nebraska or Illinois, where one party has a big numerical advantage, but we'd like to see what would happen if someone tried. The Iowa redistricting system looks like it's worth imitating."

Omaha World-Herald

"True to long-standing form, shameless partisanship played a huge part once again in congressional redistricting in state after state this year....The biggest break from that trend came in California, which for the first time has an Iowa-style nonpartisan redistricting commission.

"The resulting map (still open to some modification) displeased a lot of elected officials and party strategists, and from this distance we refrain from calling it perfect. But we did find it encouraging that a Los Angeles Times report indicated that many of the state's 58 congressional districts that have long been shoo-ins for the incumbents will no longer be so.  Perhaps one-third of the seats could now be competitive. A welcome change, indeed."

Lincoln Journal-Star

"Iowa uses a unique system that should serve as model for the nation. District boundaries for Congress and the legislature are drawn by the nonpartisan Legislative Service Agency on the basis of population alone. The latest plan was approved by an overwhelming margin by the Iowa Legislature.  It seems unlikely, however, that Nebraska will adopt the Iowa system anytime soon."

The only problem with the above is that the Journal-Star and World-Herald both appear to resign themselves to Nebraska's continuing with a flawed system that undermines the Legislature's integrity as a nonpartisan body.  Iowa and California are both offering superior models for redistricting that are more in line with our state's values and would put people ahead of politics.  This is a principle worth fighting for, which should remain a priority for anyone who believes in good government and the Nebraska Legislature's nonpartisan ideal.

Yes, it's another nine years before redistricting begins again.  That doesn't excuse putting this reform on the backburner so we can just complain about the same broken system in 2021.  We have the time to make this change happen - whether through the Legislature or directly from the people.  There are no excuses besides our being unwilling to stand up and fight for a better way.  No matter their party registration, Nebraska voters are independent-minded and don't want politics trumping the competition of ideas in fair elections.  All we have to do is give them the opportunity to prove it.

Disregard Latest Magellan Strategies Senate Poll

by: Ronaldo

Mon Jan 16, 2012 at 19:40:49 PM CST

My message to my Democratic friends about this dubious poll is to disregard it.  My message to my Republicans friends is once again to quote ESPN College Football analyst Lee Corso: "Not so fast my friends."  Why should we be so skeptical about this polling result?

As a starting point, Magellan Strategies is a Republican affiliated polling company.  It's own website describes their clients as: "hundreds of state, local and federal Republican candidates and officeholders across the country.  We have done work for large Republican organizations including the Republican National Committee, the National Republican Congressional Committee, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee.  Magellan Strategies has also worked with conservative organizations."

When you dig into the entrails of the poll, there is even more reason for skepticism.  This poll's major flaw is that it over sampled Republicans by a pretty wide margin.  In this new poll, Magellan's sample consisted of 55% Republicans, 34% Democrats and 11% independents.  In contrast, the Nebraska Republican Party conducted it's own poll on December 13, 2011 on Obama Care.  In its poll, the Nebraska Republican Party's sample consisted of 46% Republicans, 37% Democrats and 17% independents.  The data from the Nebraska Secretary of State's office for the 2010 elections indicates that 48% of registered voters are Republicans, 33% are Democrats and 19% are independents.  

As you can see, the Magellan poll substantially over sampled Republicans and under sampled independents.  If Magellan Strategies had a sample similar to the one from the Nebraska Republican Party poll from just last month or the Nebraska Secretary of State's Office, the results would be very different.   In all likelihood, a more accurate poll would show a dead heat between Kerrey and his potential Republican opponents.  That is a remarkable result in light of the fact that Bruning and Stenberg have been in the public eye in Nebraska for years.  In 2010, Bruning and Stenberg both ran high profile election campaigns for Attorney General and State Treasurer, respectively.  Since then, they have both steadily campaigned for the U.S. Senate.  And yet in an accurate poll, they would probably be tied with Kerrey and well under 50% support.  It's no wonder the RNC has been pressuring Dave Heineman to run for the U.S. Senate.

The Nebraska Democratic Party took a pro-active response to this partisan, bogus poll today.  Democratic National Committeeman Vince Powers was a guest on KLIN 1400's Drive Time Lincoln show and was very quick to point out that the Magellan poll substantially over sampled Republicans.  Powers also vigorously defended President Obama and forcefully made the case for his re-election.  For example, Powers said that President Obama had kept his promise to pull U.S. forces out of Iraq and killed Osama Bin Laden.  

My take on the Magellan Strategies poll was that they deliberately over sampled Republicans and under sampled independents to get the result that they wanted.  Magellan Strategies wants to create the false impression that if he were to run for the Senate, that Senator Kerrey would lose.  That is obviously false because Kerrey hasn't spent any time or money yet in an effort to get elected to the U.S. Senate.  In fact, Kerrey hasn't even made a decision yet.  In any event, Kerrey would probably start on an even footing with the Republicans if he were to get into the race.

What all of this tells me is that this is a winnable race for the Democrats and the Republicans know it.  That's why Magellan Strategies conducted and publicized a very dubious poll on the Nebraska Senate race.  I'm confident that the Democrats will field a strong and well financed candidate for the U.S. Senate this year.  This race won't be the coronation the Republican are expecting.  

State Of The State 2012: Heineman Hides True Agenda Behind Middle Class Deception

by: Kyle Michaelis

Fri Jan 13, 2012 at 03:34:55 AM CST

"Our highest priority should be tax relief for Nebraska's hard-working, middle class taxpayers."

Seriously, at one point in his speech, Heineman actually stated the following:

"Even with our healthy economy, many Nebraska middle class families still struggle from paycheck to paycheck. We can help these families by changing Nebraska's income tax structure and allowing them to keep more of the money they make. If your adjusted gross income is more than $54,000, you are taxed at the same marginal rate as Warren Buffett. That is unfair to middle class families."

When you actually look at Heineman's proposal (see slide 13 here), the big benefit to those middle-class families being treated so unfairly at an income of $54,000 is that they now wouldn't pay the same tax rate as Warren Buffett until their income reaches $60,000.  Meanwhile, for single taxpayers, they can still go ahead and start feeling like Buffett when their income reaches $30,000 (previously $27K).  That's a very minor tweak - not at all the fundamental reform necessary to inject some real fairness in our state's income tax structure.

Then there's the real kicker (see slide 15). When you actually look at the dollar figures for how much people would benefit under Heineman's proposed reduction in tax rates, that middle class family he talked about could probably expect to hold on to an extra $100 a year.  A family with $40,000 in income would save only $57. Compare that to someone with one million dollars in income, who can expect to pay close to $1,180 less in taxes.  For multibillionaire Warren Buffett, this could mean paying tens of thousands of dollars in less state income tax in a single year.    

You know who'd think that's wrong? That's right, Warren Buffett.  But, guess who's also going to see all the benefit from the corporate tax cut and elimination of the inheritance tax Heineman's also proposing.  Again, it's not those "hard-working, middle class families" Heineman spent his entire speech talking about.  No, it's corporate shareholders and the heirs of Nebraska's wealthiest families and biggest landowners.

As I wrote two weeks ago on restructuring the income tax, "The key is that any tax relief should be delivered to working and middle-class Nebraskans - not Warren Buffett." That statement wasn't made out of spite towards Buffett but merely acknowledging where the need exists and which families could use the most help if Nebraska is going to achieve its potential.  Heineman's speech suggests he sees the same need since he spent most of the time pretending to give a damn about the same middle class concerns.

But, Heineman's a fraud.  He's falling back upon a progressive message because it's the most effective and speaks most directly to the people.  Yet, it's the principles behind that message - our principles - that have the true power and will carry the day if we're only willing to stand up for them proudly and fight back against Heineman's deception.

Nebraska's income tax should be restructured.  It should be made fundamentally more progressive - not just tweaked around the edges to ease the way for Heineman's hidden agenda.  This is our issue if we refuse to give up on it.  So, let's go and make it happen.

A Legislative Agenda For A New Nebraska: Civil Rights In The 21st Century

by: Kyle Michaelis

Wed Jan 11, 2012 at 23:06:54 PM CST

Of course, there are real problems in this state that need to be addressed, and NNN has been taking a look at the most important of those in hopes of laying the groundwork for a progressive identity and vision of Nebraska's future.  On the related issue of civil rights, here's what we've come up with next:

Legislative Agenda For A New Nebraska
Issue #5: End Discrimination Against Nebraska's GLBT Community
In the 2000 election, 67.5% of Nebraska voters approved an amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage.  Unfortunately, the amendment went even farther than that, specifically prohibiting recognition of "the uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship."  For more than a decade, this broad prohibition has stood in the way of gay and lesbian Nebraskans seeking protection and equality under the law for their families.  It's time for that to change - and I truly believe that's a change for which Nebraskans are ready.

The Human Rights Campaign's August 2011 polling showed that Nebraskans still oppose gay marriage by a margin of 51 - 42%.  However, this same poll showed that 64% of Nebraskans favor "allowing gay and lesbian couples to enter into legal agreements with each other that would give them many of the same rights as married couples."  Just one problem - our state constitution severely limits what rights and benefits of marriage a gay couple could ever hope to achieve.  This hurts families.  It hurts children.  It creates confusion and uncertainty when people are facing the toughest decisions and most dire circumstances for those they love.

Nebraska is better than this.  We owe better to every Nebraska family than to discriminate so unjustly.  Regardless of the ongoing national debate over gay marriage, Nebraska progressives should be fighting to amend the overbroad language from 2000 and at least open the door to state recognition of civil unions or domestic partnerships.  It's not enough to wait for the conscience of the nation to overturn the entire ban.  Too many Nebraska families need the protection of law now, and I'm confident the voters of this state would surprise in their understanding and openness to that idea if the constitution's simple definition of marriage remained in place.

Keep in mind, the struggle for equality is not a single-prong battle.  Personally, I've always been much less concerned about gay marriage than ending employment discrimination against gay and transgendered Nebraskans.  In fact, five years ago, NNN proudly endorsed a bill that advanced from the Legislature's Judiciary Committe that would have added sexual orientation to the factors that an employer could not consider when making employment decisions.  NNN also supported a subsequent 2010 attempt by Omaha City Councilman Ben Gray to add similar protections to city ordinance.  Both of those efforts failed, but the cause is just as right and the need is just as great as ever.

As I've always said, the Nebraskans I know do not believe a person's livelihood and ability to care for a family should be threatened by who and how they love.  It was heartening to see this reading supported by the same poll referenced above, which indicates 73% of Nebraskans favor protecting gay and transgender people from discrimination in housing and employment.  The poll provided separate numbers for Omaha showing 78% support for such protections.

This turning of public opinion has certainly provoked some measure of fear in those who refuse to admit there's a problem, believe discrimination is a right, or simply oppose any new legal liabilities.  In the 2012 Legislative session, this fear has already resulted in State Senator Beau McCoy's introducing LB912, which would prohibit any local ordinance providing protections against discrimination beyond those classes defined in state law.  This proposal flies in the face of the very law it seeks to amend, which specifically states: "[C]ivil rights are a local as well as state concern and the Legislature desires to provide for the local enforcement and enactment of civil rights legislation concurrent with the authority of the State of Nebraska."  Perhaps most pathetic is the cowardly McCoy's proposing to leave this statement in law while the rest of his bill wholly subverts its intent.

Part of me almost wouldn't mind if McCoy's bill passed.  This site is focused statewide, and the struggle against discrimination is a state issue that has been and must continue to be fought in the state capitol.  But, at the same time, this bill is only being pushed now because of the real possibility that Omaha will soon adopt these overdue protections for its GLBT population.  That's a change that will make peoples' lives better.  It's a change that others clearly fear - perhaps rightfully so because they would no longer be able to discriminate at-will.  That's an opportunity (and a message) we can't pass-up, even while looking forward to continuing this fight at the state level.

A Legislative Agenda For A New Nebraska: Campaign Finance & DHHS

by: Kyle Michaelis

Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 02:40:44 AM CST

To answer that question, I've so far highlighted two issues on which our state needs progressive leadership - 1) Paying State Senators A Decent Salary and 2) Restructuring The Income Tax To Help Middle Class Families.  In developing a wider agenda, I may not delve so deeply on each and every issue.  I'm also going to take a break from philosophizing and justifying this effort.  The issues speak for themselves. This is nothing more than my attempt to articulate where we have the greatest urgency and most opportunity for creating a New Nebraska.  So, let's just get back to work:

Legislative Agenda For A New Nebraska
Issue #3: Ensuring Nebraska Elections Are About More Than Money
This summer's U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down Arizona's system for public campaign financing is assumed to have blown a hole wide open in Nebraska's Campaign Finance Limitation Act.  Attorney General Jon Bruning has broadly questioned the Act's constitutionality, and the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission is no longer enforcing its provisions.

While I agree that Nebraska's trigger for public financing would probably fail to pass muster with the current court, it's frankly appalling that limits on campaign funding from corporations, unions, PACs, and political parties are being summarily disregarded by the NADC in the 2012 election.  I consider this decision baseless and hostile to the public interest - particularly when it's been adopted without any change in statute.

There will be a push to gut the CFLA completely in the 2012 session of the Legislature, but Senators should refuse to buckle to special interests wanting to flood campaigns with money and drown out the influence of individual Nebraskans.  If anything, Nebraska should adjust to recent court decisions by simply following the federal model and adopting hard caps on how much money a campaign can receive from any individual or entity.  Such caps should also be extended to our state's Consitutional offices - eliminating a gap in the law that has too long allowed a price on political influence.

Of course, I fear incumbent State Senators will be hesitant to give up the option of an easy corporate and PAC-funded re-election campaign.  These are changes that may need to come from voters in the 2012 election and beyond.  But, first we'll see where our current Senators stand and whether any new candidates will step forward to defend the cause of campaign finance reform.

Issue #4: Restore Accountability & Assert Legislative Authority At DHHS
The continuing debate over foster care and child welfare privatization has illustrated time and again the dangers of a neutered legislative branch that has had no say and was barely even consulted in far-reaching policy changes of immense consequense to the people of Nebraska.  These changes were deliberately timed by the Heineman Administration and DHHS leadership to diminish the role of the Legislature.  And, to their discredit, State Senators uniformly failed in their own responsibility to demand the proper respect for the people's voice in this controversial effort.

Thankfully, there's been some improvement from State Senators of late - but only two years too late and at a terrible price for confused families, children-in-crisis, and even Nebraska taxpayers.  A new HHS Committee proposal to restore the state's authority over case management in the child welfare system is absolutely essential, and creating a specific "Children's Commission" is also an idea worth discussing.  However, neither of these is a sufficient response to the out-of-control abuse of power by DHHS throughout this whole ordeal - particularly its gross mismanagement of public dollars.

The only thing more shocking than DHHS' complete lack of transparency in moving around and wasting tens of millions of dollars is the fact that this mess was created without a strategic plan or defined goals by which those in charge might be held to account.  That should be a firing offense for those at the highest levels of DHHS - if not a career-defining failure by Gov. Dave Heineman.  Still, the need for legislative intervention in DHHS goes much farther.  From keeping State Senators in the dark about lost funding for prenatal care to unilateral decisions cutting Medicaid for Nebraska children and families - not to mention the shameless incompetence and shameful negligence at the Beatrice State Development Center - DHHS has consistently proven itself unreliable and untrustworthy.  The easiest way of changing this might be electing a new Governor, but the central problem can't wait so long to be addressed.

This agency - by far the biggest in state government - puts political agendas before the people it's supposed to serve. Just look at its two year-long refusal to implement rules of ethics for mental health professionals because of a fabricated controversy that insults the conscience and makes mockery of our state's claims to decency and compassion.  Maybe it is just doing Heineman's bidding.  But, that fealty to a politician rather than the people demands that DHHS be reigned-in once and for all.  The Legislature must look at stricter mandates, greater oversight, financial controls, and reorgnization - whatever it takes to end the embarrassment that's become of the services our state provides its neediest citizens.

Jane Raybould Would Be the Strongest Candidate in Nebraska CD-01

by: Ronaldo

Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 14:39:14 PM CST

All of this talk about Fortenberry running for the U.S. Senate has set off a flurry of speculation about what Republicans will run for the open House seat in CD-01.  The following names have been mentioned: Bob Evnen, Mark Fahleson, Tim Clare, Adam Hornung and Charlie Janssen.  But what about the Democrats?  Who do we have who would run a strong race?

In my opinion, our best candidate would be Lancaster County Commissioner Jane Raybould.  Ms. Raybould is well known and well respected in both local business and political circles.  The Raybould family has owned the B&R grocery store chain now for around 50 years.  What that means is that Raybould is responsible for the creation of thousands of middle class jobs that provide a competitive benefit package.  Raybould sits on the Board of the Chamber of Commerce and has business contacts throughout the  1st Congressional District working at various B & R store locations.

In Raybould's first run for office for Lancaster County Board, Raybould defeated a long time incumbent Republican by a 54% to 46% margin.  That is a remarkable result in light of the fact that 2010 was one of the best years ever for Republicans running for office.  Jane was a tireless campaigner and fundraiser who ran an aggressive campaign to oust incumbent Ray Stevens.   It should be noted that Raybould performed well in rural areas of Lancaster county - which is even more conservative than the rest of rural CD1.  What that means of course is that Raybould would be competitive in the rural areas of Nebraska CD-01.

On the Lancaster County Board, Raybould has shown some real leadership.  She is an expert in budget analysis and unmatched in fiscal conservatism.  She has taken on the 'good ol boy' system of Republicans dominating county offices unchecked and challenged them to become fiscally efficient.  At the same time, Raybould has defended the most vulnerable Lancaster county residents.  While other Commissioners have gone by the Heineman-style budgeting by neglecting people who need our help, Jane has remained a champion of not balancing our budget on the backs of people needing mental health and other services.  The Lincoln Journal Star was so impressed with her leadership that she was the subject of the paper's lead editorial on June 26, 2011, which said "we're glad that Raybould is willing to shake things up" and called her a "breath of fresh air."

All things considered, it is obvious that Jane Raybould would be an outstanding candidate and member of the U.S. House of Representatives.  The voters in Nebraska CD-01 could use somebody who is willing to question the conventional wisdom and shake up the system. In contrast, if a Republican is elected in CD-01, we will just get another party hack who will slavishly follow the extreme elements of the Washington, D.C. Republican agenda  and vote to slash Social Security and Medicare.

The voters of Nebraska CD-01 need somebody like Jane Raybould.  I hope that she decides to run for the House of Representatives.  

Democratic Senate Race Rumblings

by: Ronaldo

Thu Jan 05, 2012 at 16:30:26 PM CST

Nebraska Democrats have a surprisingly strong field of potential candidates and the capacity to provide ample funding to the eventual nominee.  Our prospective candidates have a broad range of experience in both government and the private sector that would appeal to mainstream Nebraska voters.

One of the possible candidates who has been mentioned is State Senator Steve Lathrop of Omaha.  We here at New Nebraska are big fans of Senator Lathrop in light of his impressive record of accomplishment in his five years in the Unicameral.  Among other things, Senator Lathrop led the way reforming the Beatrice State Developmental Center and preserving stem cell research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center.  Just last year, Lathrop held off the stampede to eliminate collective bargaining by public employees and played a key role in preserving the right to collective bargaining in a bi-partisan compromise he helped work out regarding the Commission on Industrial Relations. Senator Lathrop's outstanding record of legislative craftmanship and success in reaching across party lines would serve our state well in Washington, D.C.

University of Nebraska Regent Chuck Hassebrook would also be a strong candidate and outstanding U.S. Senator.  Hassebrook was first elected to the Board of Regents in 1994 and he is currently serving out his third term.  Regent Hassebrook has cross over appeal since he is a proven voter getter in Republican counties.  In addition to his duties on the Board of Regents, Hassebrook is the executive director of the Center for Rural Affairs.  As a result of his service in that post, Hassebrook is highly respected nationally in the areas of agricultural and rural policy.  It's obvious that Hassebrook's resume of service in both the public and private sectors makes him well qualifed to run for the Senate.

There has also been talk that former Lieutenant Governor Kim Robak may throw her hat in the ring. Robak served as Legal Counsel and Chief of Staff to then-Governor and now U.S. Senator Ben Nelson during his first term. She then served as Lieutenant Governor with Nelson from October 1993 to January 1999.  After leaving the Nelson Administration, Robak Robak joined the University of Nebraska administration as Vice President for External Affairs and Corporation Secretary where she was responsible for public and government relations, marketing and information technology for the University of Nebraska system.  She is currently working as a government relations professional at the firm or Mueller and Robak in Lincoln.  Robak would be a fine candidate due to her background in government and her overall intelligence and savvy.  

Of course, the most talk nationally has been devoted to the possibility that former Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey would run for his old seat.  Kerrey recently said he wasn't ruling out a Senate bid and that he expects to make a decision sometime this month.  Well informed sources have told me that Kerrey has been in contact with his longtime campaign manager, Paul Johnson, who also managed Ben Nelson's campaign.  Without a doubt, Kerrey would bring a lot to the table as a former Governor and U.S. Senator.  As a U.S. Senator, Kerrey made what was then an unpopular vote and supported President Clinton's 1993 economic and tax package.  Between 2002 and 2004, Kerrey also served on the 9/11 Commission which was set up by the Congress to investigate the circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon.

The eventual nominee will have sufficient financial resources with which to run a competitive campaign.  Highly placed sources within the Nelson camp have told me that Senator Nelson plans to stay active in Nebraska politics even after he leaves the Senate.  Currently, Nelson has around $2 million to $3 million in his campaign war chest.  These sources have told me that Nelson may use this war chest as seed money for a Super PAC that will be used to finance Nebraska Democratic candidates.  My educated guess is that Senator Nelson will put some of this money behind the Democratic Senate nominee.

All things considered, Nebraska Democrats are in better shape than the conventional wisdom suggests.  We have a field of potentially good candidates and - thanks to Senator Nelson - will have some seed money with which to finance the campaign. At the same time, as we've discussed here, the Nebraska Republicans have fielded a set of weak candidates running on radical platforms outside of the mainstream.  Don't be surprised to see somebody else jump in the race on the Republican side.  A well placed Republican source recently told me that Congressman Jeff Fortenberry will jump into the race.  

Everybody keep your seat belts fastened, we will have a competitive and spirited U.S. Senate race in Nebraska this year in which the differences between the parties couldn't be more different.  I anticipate that in the end, Nebraska voters will reject the radicalism of the GOP and prefer the Democratic candidate.

More Republican State Senators Should Follow Brad Ashford's Lead

by: Kyle Michaelis

Wed Jan 04, 2012 at 04:18:56 AM CST

The nonpartisan Nebraska Legislature has a nonpartisan member once again.  State Sen. Brad Ashford of Omaha changed his voter registration Thursday from Republican to non-partisan, or independent...

[H]e will be the sole independent among 49 senators, 33 of whom are Republicans...Although his colleagues generally attempt to act in a nonpartisan manner, Ashford said, they face "partisan political pressures from both sides, and during my 14 years in the Legislature, those pressures haven't been any stronger than they are today."

"My role in the Legislature is not to be a partisan person," Ashford said. "My political heroes always have been those people who work from the middle in a collaborative manner. Good ideas come from both sides."

Ashford said he is weary of partisan rancor and his moderate beliefs are out of step with the Republican Party as a whole. He said he believes he can be more effective as an independent in the officially nonpartisan Legislature. The change makes his position "crystal clear" to his colleagues and constituents.

"I joined the Republican Party in 1988 because I believed there was a future for centrist or moderate Republicans, but that's not where the party is today," Ashford said. "And I can't be there (with the party), I'm just not there. I want to be in a place where I can help solve problems and find solutions."

Sadly, this mentality has even taken hold in Nebraska - where our nonpartisan Legislature has traditionally been thought to insulate State Senators from the demands of unthinking orthodoxy.  In September, we saw the Nebraska GOP openly declare that changing the state's method of awarding its electoral college votes "is a litmus test for those who would claim to be Republicans and seek the support of the Nebraska Republican Party."  The NEGOP specifically threatened to refuse support of any kind to State Senators who might vote against this proposal.

This resolution was always reported as targeting State Senator Paul Schumacher of Columbus.  But, look what Brad Ashford had to say last March about Nebraska's current system of dividing its electoral votes on KFAB's now-defunct Tom Becka Show:

Tom Becka: "Let's talk about things that work...and that the Republicans in Lincoln are trying to change.  And, that is the way that we handle the electoral college.  I like what we do."

Brad Ashford: "I do, too."

Becka: "I think what we do is smart.  I wish everybody else in the country did it the way that Nebraska does. Okay."

Ashford: "I'm for that....I voted for it years ago....It has panned out....The enthusiasm that it engenders....to bring business to Omaha to cover these races.  To have the presidential candidates come here.  I have a thirteen year-old at Westside Middle School.  How great is it for him to be engaged and see candidates come here that run for President of the United States?  And, that did not happen.  I know...the Republican hierarchy...don't want to see it that way anymore.  But, I don't know why they don't think they can win.  They can win in the 2nd Congressional District...To me - it's just exciting, and we ought to continue it."

Becka: "Well, what's going to happen?"

Ashford: "I don't know.....It's locked up in committee.  But, I think Nebraska is unique anyway...We're very independent people.  We choose parties to belong to, but I believe Nebraskans are very independent.  And, the voting for the electoral college reflects our independence. And, I love it.  I love it, and I hope we keep it.  And, I hope we keep the enthusiasm going."

GOP State Chair Mark Fahleson dismissed Ashford's reregistration as an independent, telling the World-Herald, "We didn't lose Brad Ashford today, we lost him years ago."  Fahleson also threatened on Twitter that he'd help defeat Ashford "if he resurfaces on a ballot in the future."  However, Fahleson's rationalization and threat ring hollow when the out-of-control actions of his own power-obsessed party effectively forced Ashford from the Republican ranks.

All those Republican State Senators who remain now face the same dilemma, deciding whether they answer first to their constituents or to their party leaders.  That's a question that should never be broached in a Legislature that is officially and constitutionally nonpartisan.  

Our Legislature's integrity is jeopardized by a Republican Party that no longer respects Senators' independence and a disengaged electorate that no longer demands it.  However, that nonpartisan ideal still means something to Nebraskans - whether they recognize the threats against it or not.  Brad Ashford saw this - and responded in the only reasonable manner.  Other State Senators should be emboldened to do the same before facing the same consequences.

A Legislative Agenda For A New Nebraska: 2012 & Beyond

by: Kyle Michaelis

Thu Dec 29, 2011 at 19:44:54 PM CST

Crafting any sort of agenda in the Nebraska Legislature is no doubt complicated by the lack of strict partisan organization. But, even in states where party lines are drawn more firmly in the sand, progressives are generally going to be relegated to one wing of the Democratic Party working alongside its more conservative members. In the Nebraska Legislature, that "D" label (aka "The Indigo Letter") does not hold the same preeminence, allowing Senators to carve out their own identity and stand more on their own two feet. I don't think that's a bad thing. However, without a common Democratic agenda in the Legislature, there is a clear and unmistakable need for a progressive identity that actually means something to voters on state and local issues.

Make no mistake about it - there is a clear conservative agenda in this state. Actually, there are conservative agendas promoted by very powerful special interests that hold dominion over their respective terrain and go virtually unchallenged. Such established forces won't be counteracted over night, but no change will ever come without identifying where these locks on power exist and presenting clear arguments and clear alternatives to the people of Nebraska when they threaten the public interest.

This is not some mere game of semantics in which the Progressive label serves as a de facto replacement of "the D" (which no one sees on a ballot either way). A progressive agenda must be issues-based and - dare I say it - even ideological. This isn't and cannot be about winning elections - at least, not in any short term sense. However, I am confident of the political benefits from defining contrasts with our conservative status quo, challenging many voters' assumptions while finally giving others something to fight for.

There is no expectation that any self-described "progressive" Senator is going to agree with every proposal made under that banner. At the same time, "progressive" has to start meaning something more in this state than promoting safe environmental sustainability programs, protecting budget priorities in health and education, and defending against outrageous assaults on the right to vote or workers' right to organize. Sure, these are all important efforts, but they're never going to be enough to wake Nebraskans up from their long slumber and truly change things in our state's politics.

I am not opposed to incrementalism.  However, incremental changes must be in service to a larger vision if they're to have any integrity and capacity to inspire.  It's not enough for a few friendly politicians to simply do some good around the edges while (rightfully) pursuing their own ambitions.  We've seen where that approach leads.  It ends with whomever's in the driver's seat giving up some meager concession - not in the spirit of compromise but to silence the opposition.  Guess what - Nebraska's progressive voices are usually that opposition, and no one should think we're winning by taking what we can get with smiles on our faces.

Without further ado, here is my next idea for Nebraska's progressive agenda in 2012 and beyond:

Legislative Agenda For A New Nebraska
Issue #2: Make State Income Tax MORE Progressive
Our state's highest income tax bracket begins at a ridiculously low $27,000 for single taxpayers and $54,000 for those married and filing jointly.  At the federal level, those with the same level of earnings pay an income tax (15%) less than half of the rate paid at the top tax bracket (35%).  Meanwhile, our state's lowest tax bracket cuts off at a stupidly low $2,400 for single taxpayers - so low an amount that it can hardly be justified.  Although it would mean a slight tax increase for those who can afford it least, I could support eliminating this tax bracket entirely.  Otherwise, this lowest tax bracket should be expanded as closely as possible to its federal equivalent - which tops out at $8,700 and would benefit every taxpayer in the state.  

The truth is these rates can be tinkered with in any way imaginable.  To avoid claims of a tax hike, they could be structured to be revenue neutral or even as a tax cut.  The key is that any tax relief should be delivered to working and middle-class Nebraskans - not Warren Buffett.

At the very least, Nebraska's highest tax rate should be raised into the squarely middle-class range of $35,000 for individuals and $70,000 for married couples.  It might also be appropriate for a new, slightly higher rate to take effect at somewhere around twice these levels of income, but I know this would invite criticism for "soaking the rich" that would undermine the more important and immediate goal of righting an imbalance that has simply grown unconscionable under our state's current income tax system.

It just so happens that changes to the state's income tax are already being pushed for the 2012 session among those powerful conservative agendas referenced above.  The Nebraska Chamber of Commerce has named an income tax cut one of its highest priorities and the Nebraska Republican Party has even polled the idea in hopes of making it an election issue.  Nebraska progressives should welcome this debate and get out ahead of it with the promise of a restructuring that helps the most people, not the most powerful special interests.  

Remember: in marginal taxation, the only across-the-board tax cuts are those at the lowest levels because those are the ones from which everyone benefits.  Cutting the rates for the rich only benefits the rich except through some weak trickle-down effect.