LB 1110: State Senators Must Defend Nebraska's Children & Nebraska's Values

by: Kyle Michaelis

Tue Mar 09, 2010 at 09:03:34 AM CST

Thankfully, in this time of crisis, more and more voices have stepped forward to challenge Heineman and demand that the state of Nebraska live up to its peoples' values.  Voices for Children has put together a great new website that features videos on the importance of prenatal care for every Nebraska child:

Dear Governor Heineman:

We write jointly as the Catholic Bishops serving in Nebraska to express our high level of concern and disappointment resulting from your decision to oppose continuation of prenatal health care coverage for unborn children whose mothers are poor and undocumented. We respectfully ask you to reconsider this position and to work with the Legislature to provide access to prenatal care and services for all eligible unborn children, regardless of their mothers' immigration status.....

This is an important and urgent Pro Life matter, Governor....Denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to human dignity and pro life principles. It is a terrible injustice, which could do great harm to the lives of children at a very vulnerable stage in their development. What's worse, the lack of access to coverage for such care could be a decisive factor in leading some pregnant women to choose abortion over childbirth, each time a tragedy.....

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend George J. Lucas, Archbishop of Omaha
Most Reverend Fabian W. Bruskewitz, Bishop of Lincoln
Most Reverend William J. Dendinger, Bishop of Grand Island

On the face of it, Gov. Dave Heineman has a good point....More, indeed, must be done to prevent illegal immigration, but it should happen at the border. Turning away vulnerable people in time of need is not something we do in this state.

Denying pre-natal care to unborn children puts Nebraska officials, especially strongly pro-life officials, in an untenable position.

Whether on health grounds or financial grounds, it makes eminent sense for Nebraska to cover the cost of prenatal care for low-income women, including those who are not U.S. citizens....

As one testifier recently pointed out to a legislative committee in Lincoln, "one day in the NICU costs more than providing an entire course of prenatal care to an unborn child."  These key facts completely knock down the mistaken claim, frequently voiced in Nebraska, that denying prenatal-care coverage to these women saves money and looks out for the financial interests of taxpayers.

It's no wonder, then, that the medical and public health community across Nebraska has spoken loudly and clearly on this issue, supporting prenatal coverage for these women - and it is dismaying that the Heineman administration has remained deaf to what these health care specialists have had to say. On many matters, we find Gov. Dave Heineman to be a capable, skilled leader. But on this issue, we find it inexplicable that his administration would support the denial of coverage for this vital care....

The vote on Campbell's legislation needs to be a moment for moral clarity. Senators who in their hearts want to vote "yes" but fear the political consequences need to do the right thing and lend their support to this legislation.  On this issue, it is imperative that swing-vote lawmakers not retreat into the politically safe "not voting" mode. Otherwise, Campbell will never reach the 30-vote mark.

Incumbent lawmakers who are up for re-election or are seeking other offices also have an obligation. They'll be tempted to take the politically easy way out and vote "no" or not even vote at all. Instead, they should stand up for Nebraska's best interests and lend support to this bill.

Such backbone is the mark of a responsible leader. Such leaders put the public interests ahead of their personal political interests. Such leadership is needed now, in support of vital prenatal care.

All of our State Senators must listen to these voices - as Heineman has refused to do.  The Governor has abandoned Nebraska's children and betrayed its people's values.  Now, every State Senator must lead where the Governor has failed by supporting LB 1110.

Drug Copays: The Sky will not fall ... or maybe it will?

by: pnegrete

Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 22:27:24 PM CST

I'm a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, a friend. I'm your neighbor.  I have been in the medical arena for over 17 years as a patient who has Common Variable Immune Deficiency, as a nurse who has witnessed patients' lives evolve from babies to parents, and as a successful business manager of a large Physician system. I knew insurance back when -- before managed care.  And, I have witnessed the gradual demise of physician autonomy and human care in that time.

The Nebraska Legislature had the opportunity this year to be a hero and take the first stance and say 'NO MORE' to the insurance companies by passing LB 1017. This bill would keep insurance companies from hitting customers with crippling copayments just because they happen to have a rare disease or some other condition that requires uncommon or expensive drugs for treatment.  It's now been handed off to be studied between this legislative session and the next, but I for one hope to see it again next time around -- because passing it is too important to keep kicking the can down the road.

I'm afraid it may be hard for some to vote "yes," seeing as Nebraska is known as an "Insurance Capital." This fact was evident at the hearing on the bill, for instance in comments from committee members stating their "concern" that if they passed this bill maybe the insurance companies would just quit covering high-risk individuals altogether (concern? or an attempt at intimidation?). My answer to that? Well senators, we're all going to be "high-risk" someday, too, because cancer hits almost all families and it could hit yours. If it does, you'll find that cancer care is Tier 3 as defined by all insurance companies. That's the tier that makes you pay with your blood -- your house, your marriages, your life, if you can't afford to pay the additional cost.

As NNN's 5th Birthday Approaches . . .

by: Kyle Michaelis

Mon Mar 08, 2010 at 00:49:08 AM CST

It's a curious thing writing those first couple (hundred) diaries, when no one's reading but a few friends and family.  It takes a lot of passion - and probably a fair amount of self-delusion - to actually stick with it under those conditions.  The one thing that has always kept me going is the understanding of just how badly the people of Nebraska really need to hear a progressive voice on the issues facing our state, countering its entrenched conservative political cultural and offering a genuine alternative to its complacent and right-leaning media.

I've never imagined that New Nebraska Network could pose a real challenge to these powerful forces.  After all, it's just a blog - volunteer-run with no budget whatsoever.  But, I've hoped that my voice and my ideas might at least help inform and embolden other progressive voices who will step forward and show this state a better way.  That's a work in progress.  It may never pay-off.  But, I have to believe that, one day, it will.

NNN has never been about me.  It's about Nebraska.  And, especially since adopting a community format in August of 2007, it's supposed to be about YOU.  Maybe I haven't done enough to emphasize that.  Maybe I should be doing a lot more to make the conversations on this site less one-sided and less confrontational.  Maybe I should do more to simply encourage everyone who reads NNN to be more involved and more engaged so this site could better fulfill its potential.  I don't know, but I'm always open to suggestions.

A lot of people read NNN in a lot of different ways.  Many subscribe to our Daily E-mail Update, which sends the most recent front-page posts directly to your e-mail address.  Hundreds of others follow our Frontpage RSS feed, our Diaries RSS feed, and our Comments RSS feed.  (If RSS doesn't mean anything to you, don't worry about it).  A few people have discovered NNN on Facebook and proudly display that they're fans.  And, most recently, I've done my best to entertain and accidentally outrage readers with my various musings on the NNN Twitter account.

The real lifeblood of NNN, though, are those who participate the fullest in our little community - by responding with comments, writing diaries of their own, and even answering the most recent poll on NNN's frontpage.  It's you who make this site more than just an outlet for the writings of a would-be journalist who couldn't trade away his passion for the illusion of objectivity.  It's YOU who makes this site fun and worthwhile.

Of course, it can be you who makes the site frustrating as well - but it's all those debates and disagreements that also make this site interesting.  Sometimes those exchanges bring out the worst in us all - including myself.  But, it's the fact that we can disagree on so many things but still keep the discussion going that will make us stronger in the end.  And, hopefully - one day - our ideas might be the foundation for a true progressive political force that can win over the hearts and minds of the people of our state.

In celebration of NNN's fifth anniversary, I'm bringing back our online call-in show, "NNN Live," for a special birthday episode on Sunday, March 14th at 10 pm CST.  The show has been on hiatus since just afer the 2008 general election (about 14 months longer than originally intended).  You can listen to that last episode here - or in the sidebar on NNN's frontpage until we get that new episode recorded.

I'm still not entirely sure whether this birthday episode is a one-time thing or whether we'll try bringing the show back on a more permanent basis.  Either way, we'll try to have some fun with it and just see where things go from there.

I can't promise another five years of NNN.  To be honest, I can't imagine how this site has made it as long as it has.  The reason is you.  Thank you for reading.  Thank you for listening.  Thank you for giving a damn and for helping to make a New Nebraska possible.

Nelson Challenges "Handout Heineman" On Stimulus Extension

by: Kyle Michaelis

Sun Mar 07, 2010 at 14:47:38 PM CST

Still, just because Nelson respects the financial challenges faced by state governments, he understands that this respect is a two-way street.  State governments looking for financial assistance from the federal government have a responsibility to step up and be part of the solution as well.

Unfortunately, our Republican governor, Dave "Handout" Heineman, doesn't give a damn about being a responsible leader and a partner with the federal government.  Heineman just wants to grab all that he can get to improve his own political fortunes until the state runs into a budgetary brick wall in the coming years.

Hats off to Nelson for finally challenging Heineman on this disastrous and self-serving approach.  The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Nelson said he agrees with Nebraskans who have told him the government needs to rein in federal spending.  Nelson said Heineman is one of the governors asking Congress for the additional Medicaid funds. Nelson suggested that Heineman and the other governors should share ideas about where to find that money.

Without last year's economic stimulus bill, Nebraska's state budget would be in serious trouble, Nelson said.  "The governor and the Legislature used several hundred million dollars of stimulus funds to plug a large hole in their state budget, and so did many states," Nelson said.  "So, as we take up the bill, I'm looking forward to hearing from the governor and the Legislature on how it should be paid for."

Asked to respond, Heineman said Nelson "and his federal colleagues" need to focus on balancing the federal budget.  "In Nebraska, we balanced the budget by reducing spending, not by increasing taxes," Heineman said. "We've made difficult budget decisions while Senate Democrats passed a health care bill that cuts Medicare, raised taxes and included special deals like the Cornhusker Kickback. The Senate needs to create an environment for job creation by reducing taxes on small business and families."

Nelson said he was asking a legitimate question of Heineman and other governors about where the government should find the money that they're seeking.

"It's not much of a response," Nelson said of Heineman's comments. "Maybe the other governors will have a response."

This goes beyond irresponsible leadership.  It's just plain childish.  Of course, the game of Avoiding The Question is nothing new in politics, but Heineman takes it to new extremes by imagining that echoing decades-old Republican soundbytes will somehow erase memories of the request for more Medicaid funding he signed just two weeks ago.

The problem is that Heineman was probably right to request that additional funding extending certain provisions from the economic stimulus package.  But, it's an act of extreme hypocrisy to make that request in Washington D.C. when he's politically posturing and attacking the stimulus here at home.  This is an insult to the intelligence of Nebraskans that's only made possible by the complacency of our local media.  Thankfully, Ben Nelson is actually willing to challenge Heineman a little bit, forcing some meager acknowledgment of Heineman's hypocrisy into print.

This isn't really about Ben Nelson or Dave Heineman.  It's about our state's political culture in which conservative demagogues have too long gotten away with precisely this sort of irresponsible posturing without any fear of consequences or accountability.  We've seen this from all of our Republican Congressmen on the economic stimulus bill, on health care reform, and on countless other issues - where soundbytes and pandering skillfully covered for their own lack of solutions to the urgent problems faced by the people of Nebraska.

Heineman is just doing his best to follow in that tradition.  The problem is that, as a sitting governor, he's kind of got a responsiblity to govern.  Heineman can only get away with playing the same political games if we let him - if we refuse to demand better and to insist on leadership with some actual integrity.

"Handout Heineman" Criticizes Stimulus While Begging For More Of It

by: Kyle Michaelis

Fri Mar 05, 2010 at 00:51:25 AM CST

The Nebraska Radio Network reported:

Governor Dave Heineman says the program has fallen short of its stated goals. "Most people, as they evaluate the stimulus bill, it stimulated the public sector," Heineman says. "It protected cops, firefighter and teacher jobs, all of which are important, but what it failed to do, most importantly, it didn't stimulate the private sector. We've seen the private sector unemployment go all the way up to 10%, much greater than the president had predicted"....

There is some discussion in Washington of another stimulus-type of bill aimed at job creation. Heineman is skeptical about that proposed venture. "I'm not sure. It depends on what they would do with the jobs bill, if it's not targeted to small businesses, I don't think it would be particularly effective," Heineman says.

Still, it's Heineman's less obviously ignorant criticism of the ARRA that is also the more offensive.  After all, it was Heineman who balanced the state's budget with hundreds of millions of dollars in funding directly from the stimulus bill.  As if that wasn't enough to establish his hypocrisy, only days after making the above statement, Heineman joined 41 other governors in signing his name to the following letter to Congressional leaders requesting an extension of ARRA provisions that had nothing to do with job creation by small businesses:

Dear Madam Speaker, Mr. Boehner, Senator Reid and Senator McConnell:

On behalf of the nation's governors we write to request your assistance in protecting jobs and speeding economic recovery by extending the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act's (ARRA) enhanced federal match for Medicaid (FMAP) for two additional quarters.

Unfortunately, the length and depth of the recession means states and territories will continue to face significant budget shortfalls long after the enhanced FMAP provisions expire at the end of this calendar year.  States and territories are in the process of finalizing budgets for FY 2011 that our legislatures will be considering over the next several months. Timely passage of an extension of ARRA's enhanced FMAP would greatly assist us in maintaining services and further stabilizing the economy....

Governors appreciated the inclusion of enhanced FMAP provisions in ARRA. We are committed to encouraging job creation and speeding recovery and urge you to work with us by extending FMAP enhancements and restoring state flexibility over Medicaid as soon as possible.

Sincerely....

Governor Dave Heineman
Nebraska

This appears to be Heineman's vision of Nebraska - that of a welfare state.  Unfortunately, we're also proving an ungrateful welfare state as our Republican Governor and his Congressional cohorts turn blind eyes to the stimulus bill's hundreds of millions of dollars in local investments and thousands of jobs created or saved without which all of Nebraska would be in much worse condition.

Republican Party Calls Lee Terry's Health Care Plan "A Government Takeover"

by: Kyle Michaelis

Thu Mar 04, 2010 at 02:55:23 AM CST

Now, it would be nice if the Nebraska press made any attempt at holding Terry accountable and forcing him to explain his apparent flip-flopping on his own health care proposal.  But, the Democratic legislation is more comprehensive and actually holds real promise for expanding coverage and lowering costs, so I'm sure Terry could find plenty of reasons to justify his opposition.

However, it's very telling that the Republican Party and the most prominent right-wing think tank in the country have both singled out the role for OPM proposed by Lee Terry as evidence of Democrats' plans for a "government takeover" of American health care.  This began all the way back on December 22, when a press release from the House Republicans declared the Senate Bill is STILL a Government Takeover of Health Care.  As evidence, they cited:

"Government-Run Insurance:  The Senate bill maintains a "Fannie Med" program of government-run insurance spearheaded by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)-an approach that would likely result in additional taxpayer liability and massive federal bailouts should this insurance program prove unsustainable.  Moreover, the bill places new restrictions on insurance plans, causing millions to lose their current coverage and funneling these individuals into government-run Exchanges."

OPM's new power would go well beyond its current capacity and allow for the creation of a de facto public option....

This new role for OPM is the Senate alternative to the House passed "public option". But ordinary Americans should be leery of the difference. According to [Kay Cole] James, "this arrangement seems to be a "public option" in "private" option disguise...Because OPM would not merely serve as the umpire overseeing competition among private health plans. It would also become a health-plan sponsor, fielding its own team of players to compete against the existing private plans in every state."

OPM-sponsored multi-state plans would not be able to make independent decisions about their premiums, profits, or their benefits packages--they would be government-run. In that respect, given the regulatory power of OPM, the effects on ordinary Americans' health care would largely be the same as with a public option....[A]ll Americans should recognize the Senate alternative for what it is: a vehicle for an enormous concentration of government power over the financing and delivery of their health care.

How might the health care system evolve if this OPM feature were implemented as part of a modest reform package? Congress rarely gives an agency powers that it does not intend to be used...[T]he private plans that were part of an OPM alternative would probably come, over time, to look more and more like third-party administrators of a federally designed competitor plan, operating under rules significantly different from those governing competing private plans. The result in a few years could be functionally indistinguishable from a public option.

So far, Terry's offered no defense of his proposal from these brutal attacks by his fellow House Republicans and his favorite right-wing think tank.  With the hysteria prevailing throughout the Republican Party, demanding that they kill health care reform at any cost, it's a wonder that any of them would still want to see a SOCIALIST like Lee Terry even get re-elected.  But, they know he's a harmless enough puppet when not forced into pretending like he's an actual legislator with any real convictions or ideas for his country.

Always a spineless backbencher and generally inconsequential after 6 terms in Congress, Terry's made no effort to stand up to the right-wing hysterics against health care reform.  Instead, he's fanned them and counted on them to fuel his bid for a 7th term.  Terry just has to hope that no ones really paying attention to his own proposals or else he might just fall victim to their madness.

Right To Life Still Making Exceptions For Heineman's Pro-Life "Betrayal"

by: Kyle Michaelis

Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 09:25:41 AM CST

Unfortunately, besides some comments on NNN by Julie Schmit-Albin, there's been no follow-up action - or apology to those who've faced a higher standard than our current Governor.

Thankfully, there are pro-life groups being more consistent in their approach, less obviously bending to the will of our state's most powerful political forces.  Last month, the Nebraska Catholic Conference issued the following press release supporting prenatal care for every child born in our state:

The Nebraska Catholic Conference...expresses its deeply felt regret and concern over the recent announcement that many unborn children will become ineligible for prenatal services under Nebraska's medical assistance program.  The Conference urges quick and effective restoration of this medical assistance, using whatever public-policy actions are necesssary.  At stake is the long-term health and well-being of a significant number of the most vulnerable members of Nebraska's hman family.

Nebraska has a solid reputation as a pro-life state with strong pro-life leadership.  The fact that for many years the unborn chilrdren of low-income parents have been able to receive prenatal care through the medical assistance program is a testament to this reputation and leadership.  To discontinue any aspects of this policy, threby leaving any catgorgy of unborn chidren at greater risk of health and development problems, will weaken the foundation upon which this pro-life reputation and leadership are based.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference remains hopeful that there will be a way of administratively combining eligibility for unborn children under the Children's Health Insurance Program with the current medical-assistance framework.  Nonetheless, if legislation is necessary to restore and continue this vitally important coverage, then the Conference respectfully urges the Legislature and the Governor to act cooperatively and quickly to ensure enactment of such legislation.

This is not an immigration issue; it's a pro-life issue. Anyone who tries to make this an immigration issue should be corrected or ignored...

Admittedly, I've had my share of difference with the Nebraska Catholic Conference over the years - over matters of both policy and priorities.  But, I have a deep appreciation and feel immense gratitude for their strong stand in defense of the health, the lives, and the futures "of the most vulnerable members of Nebraska's human family" - without exception for the expecting mother's immigration status OR the "betraying" politicians' political affiliation.

The Catholic Conference didn't take direct aim at Heineman, but they didn't at Nelson or McClurg either.  In fact, on health care reform, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops differed with Nelson's final position but still thanked him for his "good faith efforts" to improve the Senate's bill.  That's a far cry from Nebraska Right To Life's spiteful, threatening approach - and their current hypocrisy.

Can't Tom Osborne Take A Hint?

by: Don Kuhns

Sun Feb 28, 2010 at 13:32:59 PM CST

The proposal would establish a public funding mechanism for federal candidates who agree to abide by certain restrictions, such as a $100 limit on contributions.

The money would come from a fee on government contractors and from auctioning off unused broadcast spectrum.

"I do know what the general mood of the country is, and that is a feeling that there is too much influence of special interests and money in Washington, and I think an act like this would help put some of that to bed," Osborne said.

But Osborne's successor - and fellow Republican - Rep. Adrian Smith said that while the current system has problems, he's against a public financing approach.

"Using tax dollars for campaigns, I think, Americans find offensive," Smith said.  Smith said the emphasis should be on timely disclosure of campaign contributions.

"Really, what's gotten out of hand are these regulations that have led to loopholes and the need to raise even more money just to comply with the regulations," Smith said.

Repeat after me, Tom:  Taxes're bad, mmmkay.  Regulations're bad, mmmkay.

Dave Heineman Betrays Pro-Life Nebraskans And Abandons Unborn Children

by: Kyle Michaelis

Fri Feb 26, 2010 at 01:09:41 AM CST

In terms of medicine, economics, and morality, continuing this policy by enacting LB 1110 is an absolute no-brainer.  Still, it shouldn't surprise anyone who's read NNN's prior coverage of this manufactured controversy that Republican Gov. Dave Heineman had the following statement read into the record in opposition to LB 1110:

"The key issue to be resolved is whether illegal immigrants should be receiving taxpayer-funded benefits.  This is a difficult issue and I know that there is disagreement among well-meaning people.  After a careful and thoughtful review of the various aspects of this issue, I am opposed to illegal immigrants receiving taxpayer-funded benefits."

Heineman's insistence that the bill is about anything else only reveals his own twisted political priorities and approach to state government.  Unfortunately, so long as Heineman is in the Governor's office, this is a reality we have to live with.  The Lincoln Journal-Star reports on what it may mean for LB 1110:

The governor's stand assures the plan will become embroiled in immigration politics and likely means the Legislature eventually will need 30 votes to overcome a governor's veto.

Now senators know his stand and have information on the issue so they can make a decision on the proposal, Sen. Tim Gay, chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee, said after a three-hour public hearing on the bill...

The Big Question: Will Lee Terry Oppose Health Care Reforms He Once Proposed?

by: Kyle Michaelis

Thu Feb 25, 2010 at 03:42:23 AM CST

In anticipation of this summit, President Obama finally put his own name on a proposal that improves upon the health care reform bill passed by the U.S. Senate this December.  Sen. Ben Nelson has taken a lot of heat from Republican activists and our conservative local press for his career-defining decision to support that historic legislation.  However, in the two months since, these same right-wing voices have failed to acknowledge that the heart of Senate Democrats' health care reform bill so closely resembles a proposal by another Nebraska Congressman - 2nd District Republican Lee Terry.

In early December, our friends at Leavenworth Street made a snarky attempt to exaggerate Terry's importance and inflate his ego by claiming that Senate Democrats' new plan for health care reform "looks a lot like Terry's."  By this, Leavenworth referred to Terry's HR 3937, which would create a Citizen's Congressional Health Benefits Program administered by the federal government's Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  

Under Terry's proposal, OPM would have set up an exchange for "comprehensive health insurance coverage."  Specifically, OPM would "contract with entitites" to offer "qualified" health plans that would need to meet any requirements "the Director [of OPM] may establish."  These health plans would be available to federal elected officials and to practically any other resident of the United States not already covered under the separate program for federal employees.  Employers would also have the option of participating in this exchange and offering its plans to their employees.

Terry can probably lay claim to the title for his Citizen's Congressional Health Benefits Program, but the actual substance of his bill was nothing original or new.  That's why it shouldn't surprise that Senate Democrats' health care reform bill really does "look a lot like Terry's."  In both, families and small businesses have a new avenue to pool their resources and increase their buying power to make insurance more affordable.  The Sentate bill's insurance exchange also includes every member of Congress and would even be administered by OPM.  The difference is that the Senate's bill goes much farther than Terry's, daring to undertake real reform that will have real costs but also real benefits.  Best of all, the Democrats were upfront and honest with a real plan for how they'd pay for all of it without adding to the national deficit.

When Terry's HR 3937 was introduced in October, I tore the bill apart for failing to include financial assistance for families to expand coverage and affordability.  In July of 2009, Terry had promised, "For those who cannot afford health insurance my plan would let those individuals opt in to the plan with some government assistance."  But, by October, he'd changed his tune and decided these federal subsidies "could be the next phase that we deal with."  In other words, Terry decided that real reform was too hard - and wouldn't fit with his party's soundbytes heading into an election year.

Well, the Senate health care bill doesn't back down from that challenge.  It doesn't wait for Terry's "next phase."  It was crafted in the understanding that the American people have already waited and suffered for far too long without real health care reform.  That's why the President's proposal provides billions of dollars in tax credits to make health insurance more affordable for individuals, families, and small business owners that want to cover their employees.

Terry may resent that Democrats have dared to deliver on his false promises.  Still, with all the above similarities, it really does fall on Terry to explain why he hasn't been supportive of the President's proposal.  If nothing else, if he was ever serious introducing HR 3937 in the first place, Terry should be leaping at the opportunity presented by this bipartisan summit to build upon their shared frameworks for reform.

Sadly, I think we know Lee Terry better than that.  We also know that the Republicans in Congress have no actual interest in passing a real health care reform bill and are more focused on delivering a defeat to President Obama - no matter the human and financial costs to the American people.  This leaves HR 3937 nothing more than a testament to the manufactured outrage and paranoia that has besieged the Republican Party - and a constant reminder of Lee Terry's hypocrisy and cowardice in failing to stand up against it.

Nebraska Congressmen Failing The Environment And Future Generations

by: Kyle Michaelis

Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 22:52:05 PM CST

LCV 2009 National Environmental Scorecard

Sen. Ben Nelson (D) - 55%

Sen. Mike Johanns (R) - 9%

Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R) - 36%

Rep. Lee Terry (R) - 14%

Rep. Adrian Smith (R) - 0%

Sure makes you proud to be a Nebraskan, doesn't it?

LB 952: Jim Suttle Just Keeps Digging By Defending Sewer Fee Sales Tax

by: Kyle Michaelis

Wed Feb 24, 2010 at 01:36:57 AM CST

No matter how much the city might need that dollar, Suttle should have been able to see that the numbers don't add up and that the city would be better served by practically any other tax or fee that would actually be collected at the local level.  Yet, while LB 952 has built momentum, been advanced from the Revenue Commitee, and been named White's priority bill for the 2010 session, Suttle has now doubled-down in his opposition by hiring an additional lobbyist to specifically fight against this legislation.

The Omaha World-Herald reports:

Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle has hired one of the state's most powerful lobbyists to help him defeat a controversial tax exemption bill.  Lobbyist Walt Radcliffe of Lincoln submitted papers Tuesday indicating that the city will pay him $5,000 a week, not to exceed $50,000 for the 2010 session....

White...said he "didn't care how many high-priced, high-powered Lincoln lobbyist the mayor hired with taxpayer dollars."

White added that he thought Omaha was "in a budget crisis" that precluded hiring additional lobbyists.  Lobbyist Jack Cheloha, who is hired by the Omaha City Council, has worked against passage of White's proposal...

Of course, I understand the defensive posture of wanting to hold onto any potential sources of revenue that aren't new property taxes.  It's certainly unfortunate that Suttle found so little cooperation from Governor Dave Heineman and Omaha's State Senators on expanding the city's options for dealing with its many fiscal challenges.  I can also empathize with Suttle wanting to contain any hikes in the property tax that might ultimately loom in the distance.  But, by working so hard to avoid being the fall guy for a property tax hike over which he may have little control, Suttle is instead positioning himself as the bad guy fighting against hundreds of millions of dollars in tax cuts for his own constituents.

There's a reason that LB 952 has 15 cosponsors - most of them from the Omaha Metro.  There's a reason that it received such strong support from the Revenue Commitee.  Although the state of Nebraska stands to lose almost four times as much revenue as the city of Omaha, there's also a very good reason why Heineman and his administration have been so much more restrained than Suttle in their own opposition. They understand that the double-tax on these sewer fees is bad policy and even worse politics.

From a progressive standpoint, applying a uniform sales tax to sewer fees based on water usage is incredibly regressive and hits low-income and middle-class families the hardest.  Still, Suttle's got his second taxpayer-funded lobbyist leading the charge against LB 952 so these families can continue to pay more taxes to the state and to the city.  In paying this mandated sewer fee, families have had no choice and little opportunity for input.  Adding an opportunistic sales tax on top of that is indefensible no matter how much Suttle is counting on it to fill the city's budet gap and help him hold the line on property taxes.

LB 952 may come to a first round vote by the Legislature before the end of the week.  If Jim Suttle refuses to be reasonable and think about the numbers behind this legislation, he should at least be aware of the message he is sending to voters and the legacy he is leaving as mayor - championing the people of Omaha continuing to pay so much more than their fair share of taxes to the state of Nebraska!