Since March 2005, New Nebraska Network has been Nebraska's online voice for progressive political change. Thank you for being part of the NNN community!
We should all remember Gov. Dave Heineman's August 25th letter to education leaders threatening decreased state aid if they do not take action against the health care reform legislation signed into law this spring by President Barack Obama:
I am writing today to encourage you and your board to support the repeal of this federal health care law. If you sit silently by, I am going to assume that your lack of action is tacit support for increased Medicaid funding and the likely reduction in funding for education. The future of education funding is at stake. Don't sit on the sidelines. I strongly urge you to support the repeal of the recently enacted federal health care law.
This threat to endorse repeal of health care reform was made to the teachers' union (Nebraska State Education Association), the Nebraska Council of School Administrators, and the Nebraska Association of School Boards. It has since been reported that a similar threat was made to University of Nebraska President J.B. Milliken and the NU Board of Regents.
Heineman's injection of partisan politicking and bullying tactics into our state's education system was an unprecedented abuse of his position that placed new urgency behind Mike Meister's gubernatorial campaign, bringing Anne Boyle into the race as Meister's candidate for Lt. Governor. Unfortunately, our state's education leaders did not respond in-kind and have so far been too cowardly to directly challenge Heineman and his threat against our children's futures.
Probably the only serious pushback (at least, publicly) has come from Omaha Public Schools Superintendent John Mackiel. As the Omaha World-Herald reported:
OPS Superintendent John Mackiel expressed dismay at the letter, saying he'd never seen such threats from previous governors Mike Johanns and Ben Nelson. "These divisive politics are not necessary and are not the Nebraska way," Mackiel said. "No parent should have to chose between their children's education or their child's health. That's not the Nebraska way."
That response contrasts sharply with that of Michael Dulaney of the Nebraska Council of School Administrators, who completely excused Heineman's behavior when speaking to the Associated Press:
Michael Dulaney, the director, said he couldn't recall the board being asked by the governor to take a position on a federal matter. "But we're living in very unusual times," Dulaney said. "I think the governor is demonstrating leadership and has a desire to protect K-12 funding."
Even worse than Dulaney was Bob Evnen of the Nebraska State Board of Education. A Heineman appointee, Evnen jumped to do his political benefactor's bidding by proposing a resolution opposing the health care reform legislation. Thankfully, a few voices of reason remained on the State Board, as reported by the Lincoln Journal-Star:
"This pits one institution against another," board member Joe Higgins said of the resolution. "We shouldn't say we can only provide for medical care at the expense of education." Instead, he said, the board should step back and look at what it wants to say about all mandates. He noted that the Legislature imposes unfunded mandates on the state board and the state board does the same to local districts....
Board President Kandy Imes, who favored a more broadly worded resolution, said she disapproved that the board's discussion was precipitated by the governor's letter.
Thanks to their moderating influence, important changes were adopted between Evnen's proposal and the final resolution. Compare the following:
A. WHEREAS the imposition of a direct expense by the federal government on state and local governments without providing the means to defray the expense imposed constitutes an unfunded mandate; and
B. WHEREAS unfunded mandates make state and local governments legally responsible for raising and spending taxes on programs over which they have no control whatsoever, and regardless of the efficiency or effectiveness of the programs; and
C. WHEREAS the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended ("PPACA"), which is the federal health care reform act enacted into law this year, contains unfunded mandates that will require the State of Nebraska to increase state spending on Medicaid by an amount expected to range between $526 million and $766 million over the next ten years; and
D. WHEREAS the State of Nebraska must balance its budget each fiscal year, resulting in substantial pressure to reduce State funding of education in order to pay for the significant increase in the State's Medicaid costs required by PPACA;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Nebraska State Board of Education calls for the repeal of the unfunded Medicaid mandates contained in the PPACA and further calls for the replacement of PPACA with alternatives that will not burden the states with unfunded mandates that threaten their fiscal stability.
Final Resolution (as adopted by Nebraska State Board of Education)
A. WHEREAS the imposition of a direct expense by one level of government upon another without providing the means to defray the imposed expense constitutes an unfunded mandate; and
B. WHEREAS unfunded mandates make state and local governments legally responsible for raising and spending taxes on programs over which they have no control whatsoever, and regardless of the efficiency or effectiveness of the programs;
C. WHEREAS the highest priority of the State of Nebraska is the education of its young people; and
D. WHEREAS the State of Nebraska must balance its budget each fiscal year and unfunded mandates imposed upon the state result in substantial pressure either to raise State taxes or to reduce State funding of education in order to pay for the cost of the unfunded mandates;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Nebraska State Board of Education calls upon the Governor and the Legislature of Nebraska to oppose unfunded mandates and to protect the resources necessary for the provision of a high quality education to the students of our State.
This resolution never takes such direct aim at the federal government as Evnen had proposed. It also makes no mention of Heineman's dubious claim that health care reform could create a $766 million unfunded mandate. In fact, the resolution declines to specifically mention health care reform in any way - let alone call for its repeal, as Heineman had demanded. But, this certainly didn't stop Heineman from praising the resolution and holding it up as some sort of victory. He simply stated:
"I applaud today's action by the State Board of Education, stating clearly and unequivocally that education is Nebraska's top funding priority. I am in complete agreement."
As hard as he may try to attach himself to this resolution, it's clearly not what Heineman had demanded. But, that by no means make it a victory for Nebraska progressives who support health care reform and reject the false choice between public health and our children's education.
Of course, part of me wants to taunt Heineman for backing down and running away with his tail between his legs after losing before the Board of Education. But, that's not what we see here. Even if Heineman hasn't gotten his way completely, he's still driving the discussion and setting the terms of debate. Heineman's actions have demanded a harsh rebuke and outright rejection. But, so far, the responses by the State Board of Education and the Council of School Administrators have enabled, encouraged, and served Heineman's political agenda.
I have to credit the Lincoln Journal-Star for running an editorial that at least expressed mild disappointment with Heineman's "heavy-handed letter" and "overt intimidation." They warned that educators can now be expected to "paste a smile on their face and nod frequently while under the governor's gaze." That's precisely what we're seeing - and it's what we'll continue to see so long as Heineman is setting the agenda and those with a duty to fight back are instead dancing to his tune.
Until those who are being bullied stand up, call him out, and challenge him head-on, Heineman benefits politically from these sorts of partisan, high-pressure tactics. Sure, Heineman may not get exactly what he wants, but - as illustated above - he's smart enough to take what he can get and keep asking for more of it.
The largest roadblock when starting a small business and for keeping that business afloat is one and the same -- money. According to the 2010 Small Business Needs Assessment conducted by the Center for Rural Affairs and its Rural Enterprise Assistance Project (REAP), 70 percent of the 500 small business owners who responded to the survey said the greatest difficulty in getting their business started with a lack of cash.
Seventy percent of the business owners who responded had been in business for at least one year and 47 percent of them stated they continue to lack working capital, said Dena Beck, REAP business specialist. The statistics were among the information and ideas shared with U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith during a business advisory committee meeting in Grand Island Wednesday.
"Now, more than ever, Nebraska needs small businesses," Smith said, "those willing to invest in their communities, provide jobs for their neighbors and help create a better future. Quite frankly, they are the lifeblood of our economy. This survey will be a valuable tool for ensuring available resources are better directed to meet the needs of small business owners to build and strengthen their businesses."
Jeff Reynolds, REAP program director, said the survey focused mostly on "microenterprise" businesses, meaning those with five or fewer employees. Those small businesses are struggling, so getting them the loans and the training they need to be more successful is critical, he said.
Wow, it sounds like our local economy sure would benefit from an infusion of $30 billion to community banks that would be expected to open $300 billion in new lending to small businesses. Yeah, that would probably help a whole lot. Unfortunately, Adrian Smith voted against that program - and against Nebraska's small businesses - right alongside Congressmen Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry.
Every single penny that went to these community banks would have been paid back - with interest - and our Representatives didn't care. While Democrats were still able to pass the bill in the House, Mike Johanns and his fellow Republicans have now been filibustering it in the Senate for more than a month.
In Grand Island, Smith was specifically listening to how tough it is right now for small business owners to get bank loans. He offered platitudes about small businesses being "the lifeblood of our economy," while calling this survey "a valuable tool." But, when Smith actually had a chance to do something about the problems faced by small businesses in our state, he instead did his party's bidding and helped block our nation's economic recovery. This is the most important sort of investment that could be made in America to spur job creation, and Smith, Fortenberry, Terry, and Johanns have all voted against it.
Our Republican Congressmen are voting against Nebraska and betting against America - all for their party's political gain. It's time we demand better from our representatives and better from ourselves.
You may recall that, about three weeks ago, 2nd District Republican Congressman Lee Terry signed the following pledge at an AARP event celebrating the 75th birthday of Social Security:
"We need to strengthen Social Security, not cut it. That is why I oppose any cuts to Social Security benefits, including increasing the retirement age. I also oppose any effort to privatize Social Security, in whole or in part."
Of course, Lee Terry has a 12 year record in Congress completely contradicting this pledge. In fact, it was only two years ago that Terry responded to questions on Social Security reform by declaring in the Omaha World-Herald, "All options should be on the table for consideration, including private accounts."
How does Terry explain this supposed change of heart? Confronting Terry with evidence of his total flip flop on plans to cut Social Security benefits and make Social Security less secure, the World-Herald now reports:
Terry supported former President George W. Bush's 2006 attempt to privatize parts of Social Security for younger workers. Terry continued to publicly back partial privatization through his successful 2008 re-election bid. But he said he has changed his mind....
Terry said he is simply being practical and listening to his constituents. "The people spoke on that, and it was soundly rejected," he said.
You have to wonder when it was that "the people spoke" on privatizing Social Security. If it was when Bush's plan flatlined in 2005, why is that Terry refused to listen for the next five years? Terry stood by Social Security privatization through the 2008 election - the closest race of his political career - until suddenly NOW he claims to have had a change of heart.
Actually, Terry's flip-flop is even worse than the World-Herald reported. Where they suggest that Terry is flip-flopping from a position he'd voted on countless times and still held two years ago, it turns out that he's really flip-flopping from statements made just three months earlier. On the May 10, 2010 episode of KFAB's Tom Becka Show, Terry and Becka shared the following exchange about so-called entitlement reform:
Terry: "We tried to touch that rail about four or five years ago when we still had control and just got zapped. But I think the people are behind us now"....
Becka: "You can't touch Social Security. You can't touch Medicare. You can't touch these issues that are really going to bankrupt this country. How do you touch that?"
Terry: "We have to. We have to go in there and do it."
Speaking to a conservative talk radio host on the day before a Republican primary in which Terry was being challenged by a Tea Party candidate, Terry insisted "we have to" touch Social Security. Three months later, he faces a different candidate, a new election, and suddenly says WE CAN'T touch Social Security.
It isn't that "the people spoke" in these last three months. Between the diminishing numbers for his last three campaigns and his now facing the toughest challenge of his political career, Terry is clearly spooked and willing to say absolutely anything that might help carry him through his next election.
We shouldn't be surprised. He's done it before. Nebraska Watchdog reports:
In 1998, when he was in another tough race, Terry signed the US Term Limits pledge, promising to serve no more than three terms in the House of Representatives. But in the spring of 1999, after winning the primary and then the general election, Terry tossed the pledge aside and is now in his 12th year in the House...
Asked by Nebraska Watchdog why voters should believe Terry will keep his pledge on Social Security when he didn't keep his pledge on term limits, Terry's campaign issued an 81 word statement that never mentions term limits or Terry's decision to break that pledge.
It's pretty simple. Terry's pledge to protect Social Security is only a ploy to protect his political career. It isn't worth the paper it's written on or the ink with which he signed his name.
ActBlue Nebraska is BACK!!! And, it needs your help to make sure our best candidates have the support they need to win in November as we continue to build a better progressive vision for Nebraska's future. Please contribute what you can in money and in your time.
Gov. Dave Heineman's letter threatening Nebraska's education community with decreased funding if they refuse to join Republican efforts to repeal health care reform has generated substantial controversy and - yes - outrage from the people of Nebraska. Voters are starting to realize that they can no longer "sit silently by" while their governor uses arm-twisting and bullying tactics to force community leaders into doing his bidding. They can not give "tacit support" to a governor who treats our childrens' futures like a political bargaining chip.
With this awakening among Nebraska voters, it's clear that Heineman has overplayed his hand and committed a major misstep in his re-election campaign. Of course, with only nine weeks left before the 2010 election, Democratic challenger Mike Meister faces long odds and a significant financial disadvantage. But, the window of opportunity has cracked open - and then opened even further with the selection of Anne Boyle as the Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor.
Boyle says she made up her mind to join Meister on the Democratic ticket on Friday when she learned of Heineman's "abuse of power" and "blackmail politics." While the addition of Boyle might cost Meister support from former Democratic candidate Mark Lakers, it's an incredibe boost in every other respect, bringing to the campaign name recognition, a lifetime of public service, and a proven reputation for straight-talk and integrity.
When Boyle publicly questioned Lakers' integrity and asked for his disavowal by party leaders, NNN regretted that "a divided Democratic Party has no chance of beating Dave Heineman." Today, with Meister and Boyle joining forces, it's safe to say that Democrats are no longer divided - and Heineman might just be getting more than he'd bargained for.
But, it's going to take resources to give Heineman the challenge and Nebraskans the choice they deserve. Stand up to the bullying and the threats! Contribute to Mike Meister and Anne Boyle - through ActBlue Nebraska - today!
If one Republican member of the nonpartisan Nebraska State Board of Education has his way, that body will be doing Gov. Dave Heineman's bidding, spitting in the face of the federal government and its efforts to reform our nation's broken health care system.
The Nebraska State Board of Education will consider a resolution this week calling for the repeal of the "unfunded mandates" of federal health care reform. The resolution, proposed by board member Bob Evnen, comes on the heels of a letter sent to education leaders by Gov. Dave Heineman urging them to support repeal of the federal reform or risk losing state education funds....
Evnen said he asked that the resolution be added to the board's agenda not because of pressure from the governor, but because he agrees that the health care reform act will be a "terrible financial drag" on the state's budget....The State Board of Education will discuss the proposed resolution at its Wednesday work session and could vote on it Thursday during the board meeting.
The proposed resolution says the federal health care reform contains unfunded mandates that will require Nebraska to increase state spending on Medicaid by between an estimated $526 million and $766 million over the next decade. They are the figures cited in Heineman's letter, based on an independent study by Millman Inc., an independent actuarial firm.
Other national studies have shown lower additional costs. But Evnen said he believes Millman, a nationally recognized actuary, is as reliable an analysis as any available.
The Kaiser Family Foundation and Heineman's own Department of Health and Human Services both say these Milliman cost estimates are inflated by hundreds of millions of dollars. But, it shouldn't surprise that Bob Evnen finds Heineman's self-serving numbers reliable. He was appointed to his seat by Heineman in 2005. Last year, Heineman also appointed former Republican Party Chair Mark Quandahl to another seat on the State Board of Education. Quandahl has since joined forces with Pete Ricketts to fund the Nebraskans For Fiscal Accountability PAC - which spent more than $30,000 in the May primary helping Heineman's hand-picked challengers against the two most endangered Democratic State Senators.
So, yeah, it's safe to say that Evnen and Quandahl are going to be firmly in Heineman's pocket on this one. That leaves six votes up for grabs on the eight member board. Each member is being asked to adopt a right-wing political stance based on outrageously inflated cost estimates that gave no consideration to the benefits of health care reform. They are also being asked to embrace the same shameless hypocrisy towards the federal government that has become the hallmark of the Heineman Administration.
As of March 30, 2010, Nebraska's Department of Education claimed $363.8 million in federal education funding through the American Recovery and Relief Act. Next year, that's being followed-up with additional stimlus of $59 million - which won't add a single dime to the federal deficit. That's almost $423 million in federal funding - supported by Sen. Ben Nelson but opposed by all of our Republican Congressmen - without which education in the state of Nebraska would already be facing an outright catastrophe.
Heineman's spent the last 18 months with his hand out, greedily taking every dime he could get from the federal government to pad the state's budget and delay tough choices until after the 2010 election. At the same time, Heineman's other hand has been quick to stab the federal government in the back, decrying it for the sort of "wasteful spending" that's bailed out state governments and prevented massive cuts to education (i.e. closed schools, teacher layoffs) during the worst economic recession since World War II.
So far, this hypocrisy has worked just great for Heineman. Politically, he gets all of the benefit and none of the blame. Not only that, but he's the one pointing the finger. With this resolution, the State Board of Education has its chance to join Heineman in this hypocritical finger-pointing - turning a blind eye to the health care needs of students and their families, the massive hikes in insurance premiums that put added pressure on school budgets each year, and the hundreds of millions of dollars we've taken from the federal government in just the last 18 months that almost certainly dwarfs any added costs to the state over the next 10 years.
I would not actually expect the State Board of Education to make any attempt to send back the $423 million in federal funding that continues to benefit Nebraska's schools. Passage of these stimulus bills was the right thing to do for the American economy, and Nebraska was right to accept the money to protect the quality of our children's educations through a still-fragile recovery. But, the crushing economic and human costs of a broken health care system were no less a threat to our nation's future. They demanded the same forward-thinking, courageous leadership that ultimately made reform possible. When all is said and done, we will be a whole lot better and stronger for both of these critical investments at such a critical time.
The State Board of Education is the first real battleground in Heineman's campaign of misinformation and intimidation against health care reform. They need to hear from you if they're going to have the courage to stand up to Heineman's bullying, rejecting his false choices and rising above his hypocrisy. Our friends at Bold Nebraska indicate that the Board will be accepting public comments at their Thursday morning meeting in Lincoln. Please join with Bold Nebraska in making our presence known and our voices heard.
It is going to be a test of our education systems' integrity how each individual member of the Board of Education responds to this clear injection of partisan gamesmanship into their proceedings. Heineman has threatened public education. Now, he's expecting his payoff. It's up to the Board of Education to send a clear and unmistakeable message that they will not tolerate our children's futures being held ransom for one man's political gain.
This weekend, NNN turned its attention to Gov. Dave Heineman's shameless politicization of public education to further the Republican Party's campaign to repeal health care reform.
Heineman's using taxpayer dollars to commission a loaded, politically-motivated study of this legislation's expected costs to the state followed the playbook of Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R). They even used the same firm, Milliman Inc., which is conducting similar studies for more than a dozen other states with Republican governors hoping to drive public opinion even further against health care reform before people begin realizing its many benefits. But, so far, Heineman appears to be the only of these governors who's used Milliman's numbers to directly threaten education leaders with decreased state funding if they don't enlist in his partisan efforts.
Thankfully, as soon as Heineman released the Milliman report for Nebraska, our state had a few brave voices who were quick off the draw challenging its loaded calculations, based on unreliable data, failing to take into account the benefits of health care reform - especially its cost savings.
"While the intent of the report is to illustrate how much health care will cost state government, it actually illustrates how much of a burden health care costs are to Nebraska families. Without health reform, Nebraska families would be picking up the full costs of the uninsured rather than the State picking up 5% of the cost to insure them. This report doesn't make a case against health care reform. It makes the case for it.
"If health care costs to state government are a greater concern than the overall cost of health care to Nebraska consumers, then the state can save billions of dollars in both the state and federal budgets by opting out of Medicaid. I don't believe that's a solution to our health care problems. Nor do I believe the majority of Nebraskans will see it as a solution."
State Senator Jeremy Nordquist - a national leader on health care policy - also led the way in reform's defense. The Omaha World-Herald reported:
State Sen. Jeremy Nordquist of Omaha, a Democrat, disputed Heineman's conclusions. He said the study shows between 108,000 and 145,000 additional Nebraskans would get health coverage through the federally required changes. "It's a significant amount (of cost to the state), but it's an amount that has significant benefit," he said. "Nebraska has to have some skin in the game here."
Nordquist said the analysis did not show the potential savings from having almost all Nebraskans covered by some form of health insurance. A 2009 study by the White House Council of Economic Advisors estimated that state and local governments in Nebraska spend at least $36 million on care for uninsured residents.
There's so much else that demands to be refuted in the Milliman "study." There's the history of Heineman's DHHS cooking the books to serve the administration's agenda. There's also the inflation of Medicaid eligibility (from 133% to 138% of the Federal Poverty Level) while making wholly unrealistic projections of 100% enrollment by every Nebraskan who would qualify. Even Milliman's "mid participation" projections radically overstate how many Nebraskans might reasonably be expected to receive Medicaid coverage.
By way of contradiction, both Nelson and Nordquist were quick to point to a Kaiser Family Foundation study from earlier this year that placed costs to the state through 2019 at only $106 to $155 million. That's roughly $400 million dollars less than Milliman's projections for a program that could decrease the number of uninsured Nebraskans by 76% (or 71,053).
Ultimately, it's that failure to take into accounts the benefits of health care reform that is the real weakness in Heineman's self-serving cost estimates. While the aforementioned Kaiser Family Foundation study is a good place to start for the number of Nebraskans whose lives are going to be radically changed for the better, it's the actual savings to Nebraska taxpayers who already have insurance that is the real selling point for this legislation. For that, you don't need estimates from the White House Council of Economic Advisors. You just need to read the figures from an earlier 2009 study by Milliman Inc. - the same experts relied upon by Heineman and his fellow Republican governors.
This study, commissioned by Families USA, looks strictly at the costs of uncompensated medical care. As Families USA explained:
When the uninsured do obtain care, they struggle to pay as much as they can afford. Often, however, the uninsured cannot afford to pay the entire bill, and a portion of it goes uncompensated. To make up for these uncompensated care costs, doctors and hospitals charge insurers more for the services provided to patients who do have health coverage. In turn, the costs that are shifted to insurers are passed on in the form of higher premiums to consumers and businesses that purchase health coverage.
This cost shift to health insurance premiums is a "hidden health tax." To quantify this "tax," Families USA contracted with Milliman, Inc., an independent actuarial consulting firm, to analyze federal Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) data and data from other federal and private sources. Based on these data, Milliman estimated the total national cost of uncompensated care provided to the uninsured, and it quantified that amount spread across the privately covered, non-Medicare, non-Medicaid population.
Through this study, Milliman found an annual "hidden health tax" of $1,017 for families that already have health care coverage. For individuals with insurance, that average hidden health tax is $368 of their annual premiums.
These are Milliman's own numbers and they illustrate just how much Nebraskans stand to benefit no matter the contradicting cost estimates of our state's Medicaid expansion. This hidden health tax is already being imposed on Nebraskans. Health care reform may not wipe these costs out completely, but it's our first line of attack to bring them under control and actually start driving them down.
For strictly partisan reasons, Heineman is working VERY HARD to see that doesn't happen. He would leave Nebraskans without insurance to continue fending for themselves while everyone else pays this hidden health tax for their uncompensated care. If Heineman doesn't want that tax to continue ($1,017 annually for each insured family and $368 for each insured individual), he needs to listen to his own experts, put politics aside, and finally start working to make health care reform a success.
Last week, Gov. Dave Heineman made a high-profile attack on health care reform, releasing a Milliman Inc. report commissioned by his administration that estimated reform's costs to the state of Nebraska at $526 to $766 million over the next 10 years. There's plenty suspect about those numbers that needs to be refuted in a future post, but - for now - the big story is what Heineman's actually doing with these figures.
Heineman generated plenty of press with this report - especially by portraying these increased costs as a direct threat to state funding for public education. Heineman has since followed up that assertion with a letter to the Nebraska teacher's union, the Nebraska school board association, and Nebraska school administrators calling for them to join him in supporting healh care reform's immediate repeal.
Jess Wolf, President, Nebraska State Education Association
Mike Dulaney, Executive Director, Nebraska Council of School Administrators
John Bonaiuto, Executive Director, Nebraska Association of School Boards
Dear Mr. Wolf, Mr. Dulaney, and Mr. Bonaiuto:
I am writing today to share with you the results of an independent analysis of the federal health care law on Nebraska's Medicaid program....The federal health care law is an unfunded Medicaid mandate that will cost Nebraska between $526 million and $766 million over the next 10 years....This unfunded Medicaid mandate is unfair and unsustainable. The results are potentially devastating to the State's budget.
As you know, the three largest components of the State's budget are state aid to education, the University of Nebraska and higher education, and Medicaid. Increased funding for Medicaid is likely to result in less funding for education. I am writing today to encourage you and your board to support the repeal of this federal health care law. If you sit silently by, I am going to assume that your lack of action is tacit support for increased Medicaid funding and the likely reduction in funding for education.
The future of education funding is at stake. Don't sit on the sidelines. I strongly urge you to support the repeal of the recently enacted federal health care law. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dave Heineman Governor
I can't help but be reminded of the June 2009 letter Heineman penned to the teacher's union (NSEA), in which he insisted that school districts were in a position to raise teachers' salaries. This was in the middle of an economic recession, just weeks after Heineman had signed a state budget relying on hundreds of millions of dollars in one-time stimulus funds to (mostly) meet its obligations to K-12 education. You can argue with the merits and the timing of that letter, but there's no arguing with the results - teachers had a weapon to carry into their contract negotiations, local school boards were pressured into new long-term spending obligations, and - sure enough - Heineman had the NSEA's endorsement for re-election.
That early endorsement by the NSEA was a terrible blow to any Democratic challengers' chances in 2010. Heineman knew that - having learned from former Republican Governor Charley Thone's example. You'd think this would have been victory enough for him - at least through November. But, Heineman's now set out to humiliate Nebraska's teachers, shoving their endorsement in the NSEA's face and thinking there's nothing they can do about it.
There's no other way to explain this latest letter. Heineman is asking Nebraska's teachers to make themselves pawns in a right-wing crusade to kill the dream of an America where we care for one another's health as something more than a privilege or a source of profit. Heineman is asking school board members and administrators to turn their backs on the impoverished children in their schools and those with pre-existing conditions - not to mention every Nebraska family in which parents live in fear of losing their job and their insurance coverage.
Can Heineman be serious? Can he be so depraved? Can he honestly believe that our state's entire education community could be bought with so cheap a threat? Yes, he can. Yes, he is. Yes, he does - because this is how he operates and it's worked out pretty damn well for him these last five-and-a-half years.
There may not be a rebuke strong enough to do anything about that now - in time for the November 2nd election - but our state's educators damn well owe it a try. The teacher's union, in particular, should revoke their endorsement of Heineman in the harshest terms possible, declaring their independence once and for all from those who'd pit one child's dreams against another child's diabetes, one child's career against another child's cancer treatment.
This is Nebraska's face to the world. Heineman is playing political games with our children's futures - like he did previously on the prenatal care issue. And, while his teacher pay letter was at least on campaign stationary, he's now playing these games - writing THIS letter - on the state's letterhead, in his official capacity as Governor. It's in that capacity that he is THREATENING our children's education, in what has to be one of the most pathetic moments in our state's political history.
But, this is also an opportunity - an opportunity FOR REDEMPTION. An opportunity to stand up to Heineman and tell him, this time, we won't be divided and conquered. We won't be played for fools given something to fear or someone to hate. We are better than this. And, even when we're not sure we can beat the Heinemans of the world, we will never be like them. It's time to live up to that promise, showing this state and showing ourselves who we really are.
In an email to supporters today, Tom White's campaign for Congress unveiled its first TV ad. The 30-second bio spot highlights Tom's record of independence and fiscal responsibility.
The ad begins with Tom speaking directly to voters about the irresponsible debt that both parties in Washington have created. It introduces Tom as someone who worked his way through school doing construction jobs, helped pass the largest tax cut in state history, and voted to cut state spending to balance the budget.
There's recently been some interesting and very important back-and-forth in the Omaha World-Herald's Public Pulse, to which every voter in the 2nd Congressional District should have been paying attention. You won't find a clearer example of why Lee Terry can't be trusted to responsibly balance the federal budget - and why Terry and his toadies can't be trusted on the campaign trail as they flat-out lie about his record.
I attended Congressman Lee Terry's town hall on July 9 and asked him why he voted for the Medicare Part D prescription drug bill in 2003, given that the huge increase in government spending wasn't paid for and instead was added to the deficit.
Rep. Terry told me that the program was paid for in the budget, which just isn't true. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said that the bill "would increase mandatory outlays by $407 billion for fiscal years 2004 to 2013 and would raise federal revenues by $7 billion over that period."
So, Lee Terry voted to add about $400 billion to the deficit in the first 10 years and trillions more in the following decades. Even worse, he wasn't honest about it.
Bill Clark, Omaha
I believe that Bill Clark's July 24 letter about U.S. Rep. Lee Terry and the Medicare Part D prescription drug program missed the mark. The fact is, this program was enacted in 2003, became effective in 2006 and has cost substantially less than originally expected. Competition among the dozens of prescription drug plans has pushed costs down.
Mr. Clark should know that all of the general government appropriations needed for Part D have been budgeted. Rather than being criticized, Terry should be thanked for his support of this initiative.
The Medicare Part D program now provides prescription drug assistance to 27 million seniors on Medicare - a huge benefit, especially in a time of economic hardship.
Richard Carter, Bellevue
Co-Chairman, Lee Terry for Congress
This is in response to a July 24 letter. Congress' passage of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act in 2003 created a new voluntary prescription drug benefit plan that was funded through the fiscal year 2004 budget resolution, which reserved $400 billion for the prescription drug benefit.
By including the Medicare prescription drug benefit in the budget, Congress acted responsibly in ensuring that the program would not contribute to the deficit. The program has created a competitive delivery system among private-sector plans that has resulted in seniors paying, on average, 60 percent less in Part D premiums than the Congressional Budget Office originally projected.
Millions of seniors now have access to affordable prescription drugs, an option they did not have before.
Lee Terry, Omaha
U.S. House representative, R-Neb.,
2nd Congressional District
Who is U.S. Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., trying to fool by saying the $400 billion Medicare Part D Bill was funded as part of the 2004 Budget Resolution Act?
All funded or unfunded outlays are shown in Budget Reconciliation. If it were funded, there would have been additional taxes or spending cuts to pay for the costs for Medicare Part D. There were neither.
Medicare Part D was unfunded, except for premiums paid by Medicare participants for about a quarter of the cost. The rest of the cost of every prescription we fill, even today, is paid by borrowing money mostly from foreign governments like China.
The 2004 Budget Resolution Act will increase the deficits over 10 years by $1.7 trillion, due mainly to President George W. Bush's 2003 tax cuts and Medicare Part D.
The total cost of these two items for 10 years was almost $1 trillion, both of which Terry voted for.
Bert Peterson, Hastings, Neb.
It's actually much worse than that, Bill and Bert. Please see page 133 of the 2009 Medicare Trustees Report. There you'll find that Lee Terry and the Republican Congress' irresponsible plan for Medicare Part D created an unfunded obligation of $15.5 TRILLION on the backs of the American taxpayer. As Bruce Bartlett wrote for Forbes Magazine, "[T]he drug benefit had no dedicated financing, no offsets and no revenue-raisers; 100% of the cost simply added to the federal budget deficit."
After that vote, Terry has never had a leg to stand on criticizing the health care reform legislation - which is actually paid for and is set to reduce the federal deficit by trillions of dollars. Terry failed on both of those fronts with legislation benefititting far fewer people. And, Terry's campaign now says we should be thanking him for that incompetence and hypocrisy?
Looks like Richard Carter had better get his markers out once again. What part of $15,500,000,000,000.00 doesn't he understand?
2nd District Congressman Lee Terry sure is OUTRAGED by the $13 trillion national debt. We know because he says so in his first TV ad of the 2010 general election campaign:
Terry says, "In Nebraska, we understand you don't borrow what you can't pay for." That may be true of voters, but it isn't true of Lee Terry.
In his first ten years in Congress, Terry contributed to growth in the federal debt from $5.6 to $10.7 trillion. Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress AND the White House the majority of that time. Before President Barack Obama had even set foot in the Oval Office in 2009, Lee Terry had already helped double the national debt!
Just look at the numbers:
Total Public Debt Outstanding (according to U.S. Treasury) 12/31/1998 $5,614,217,021,195.87 (Lee Terry takes office) 12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37
12/31/2001 $5,943,438,563,436.13
12/31/2002 $6,405,707,456,847.53
12/31/2003 $6,997,964,247,818.28
12/31/2004 $7,596,142,802,424.14
12/30/2005 $8,170,424,541,313.62
12/29/2006 $8,680,224,380,086.18
12/31/2007 $9,229,172,659,218.31
12/31/2008 $10,699,804,864,612.13 (President Obama takes office) 12/31/2009 $12,311,349,677,512.03
08/23/2010 $13,363,278,285,831.30
The truth is Lee Terry didn't give one damn about the federal debt until he and the Republican Party could finally blame someone else for it. And, he has a 12 year record to prove it!
President Obama was handed the worst economic recession since World War II. Lee Terry's answer to that crisis was to bail-out Wall Street and the big banks while spending the last two years blaming Democrats for the situation created by President George W. Bush and the Republican Party's disastrous economic policies. But, Lee Terry can't run away fast enough from that $13 trillion debt. He created it. He owns it. And, don't let anyone forget that as the 2010 election approaches!
On July 31st, Sen. Mike Johanns delivered the Weekly Republican Address, using it as an opportunity to attack President Barack Obama for policies that hurt small business job creation and economic growth. That same day, President Obama used his Weekly Address to challenge the Republican Party's "do-nothing policies and partisan maneuvering," especially their obstruction of the Small Business Jobs Act.
This legislation offers numerous tax benefits for small business investment while infusing $30 billion into community banks to encourage small business lending. It's also fully paid for, adding nothing to the national deficit. Yet, just the day before Johanns went on the air to attack Obama for hurting small businesses, he'd joined all of his Republican Senate colleagues in filibustering the bill specifically designed to help them grow.
Here you go, folks - Mike Johanns and the GOP versus Barack Obama and the U.S. economy:
Mike Johanns: I begin with a very sincere question for our President. Isn't it time, Mr. President, to tone down the rhetoric and to govern?...You talk about creating jobs and that sounds good, but your policies just do the opposite - with a fiercely anti-business tone.
Let's take an honest look at the impact of your agenda...Our small businesses generate 65 percent of the new jobs. In Nebraska, we like to call them our Mom and Pop enterprises. These are really good people who don't want to get caught-up in a political debate. They want to get up in the morning, head to work and find creative ways to build their businesses. And your policies, Mr. President, are hurting them....
To put it simply; your actions thus far, Mr. President, don't encourage small businesses to hire employees. You're signaling to the business owners that they best be very cautious, not only because of the flurry of new taxes and regulations, but also because a national energy tax is next on your agenda. It's time to stop pushing anti-growth policies and start supporting a real job growth agenda.
Barack Obama: As we work to rebuild our economy, I can't imagine anything more common-sense than giving additional tax breaks and badly-needed lending assistance to America's small business owners so they can grow and hire. That's what we're trying to do with the Small Business Jobs Act - a bill that has been praised as being good for small businesses by groups like the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business. It's a bill that includes provision after provision authored by both Democrats and Republicans. But yesterday, the Republican leaders in the Senate once again used parliamentary procedures to block it.
Understand, a majority of Senators support the plan. It's just that the Republican leaders in the Senate won't even allow it to come up for a vote. That isn't right. And I'm calling on the Republican leaders in the Senate to stop holding America's small businesses hostage to politics, and allow an up-or-down vote on this small business jobs bill.
A slightly-modified Small Business Jobs Bill will be coming back up for a vote as soon as Congress comes back into session in September. This important job-creating bill never should have been delayed by Johanns and the GOP's stalling tactics. We've already seen where they stand and what kind of games they're playing. But, soon they'll have one more chance to practice what they preach and quit risking our nation's economic recovery for their own political gain.
Because of Nebraska's low unemployment rate, the unemployed in our state are only eligible for 60 weeks of unemployment insurance benefits of the full 99 available where workers have taken the biggest hit. That's created some real hardship for overlooked Nebraskans facing unemployment - and some easy openings for the sort of shameless political opportunism we've come to expect from our Republican Congressmen.
Residents in just three states -- Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota -- qualify for just two of four tiers of extended [unemployment insurance] benefits, under the original extension plan created by Congress in 2008.
Neighboring states of Iowa, Colorado and Kansas, with unemployment rates above 6 percent, qualify for Tier 3, and their long-term unemployed can get between 73 to 93 weeks of benefits. Thirty-one states, those with unemployment rates above 8.5 percent, were participating in all four tiers, giving the long-term unemployed in some of those states up to 99 weeks of benefits, based on an Aug. 8 federal report....
"If you are without a job, you are a 100 percent unemployed," said 1st District Rep. Jeff Fortenberry, in an e-mail response. "If Congress is going to pass increased assistance levels, benefits should apply equally. It should not matter whether you are in New York, California, or Nebraska."
That's funny. When that original extension of unemployment benefits was passed in 2008, Fortenberry sang the completely opposite tune. Then, he voted with most of his Republican colleagues to limit the extension of unemployment benefits to states like New York and California where the unemployment rate was at least 5.0% or where the rate had risen by 20% during the last 12 months. Guess what - that wouldn't have included Nebraska!
If Jeff Fortenberry would have actually had his way, Nebraska's unemployed never would have qualified for extended unemployment benefits in the first place. The same goes for Adrian Smith and Lee Terry, who was even more hypocriticial than Fortenberry when he tried to score political points off this same issue when benefits were extended in 2009.
Of course, I've previously reported on this hypocrisy. But, look at how it continues without explanation or apology from our Republican Congressmen - nor even the slightest attempt at accountability from the Nebraska press.
Fortenberry says, "If you are without a job, you are a 100 percent unemployed." He couldn't be more right. The problem is he didn't care in 2008, and he doesn't care now.
