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!
I'm calling my shot today. You heard it here first. Bob Kerrey will be Nebraska's next U.S. Senator.
I'm increasingly confident that Kerrey will win. Just why am I so confident? The answer is easy: the Nebraska GOP is desperate to keep Kerrey off the ballot. The Nebraska Republican Party has filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Lancaster County challenging Kerrey's candidacy because state candidates must be registered voters when they file, and, in order to register, they must have a Nebraska residence. The GOP's challenge was heard by District Judge Steven Burns today and - as of this writing - we're still waiting for a decision. (see update below)
At the hearing itself, Kerrey's attorney (as well as Secretary of State John Gale's attorney) argued that the court doesn't have jurisdiction in the matter. Judge Burns appeared to agree with that argument. Highly placed sources in the Nebraska Democratic Party have told me that the lawyers for the GOP failed to present a complete record of the proceedings at the Secretary of State's Office and that failure will most likely result in the case being dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Moreover, the GOP's presentation of only a partial, cherry-picked record will make it very difficult for them to prevail on appeal. (If the case is indeed dismissed on these grounds, the lawyers for the Nebraska GOP will have committed legal malpractice.)
What makes the GOP's lawsuit so hypocritical is that the GOP claims to be the party that is opposed to so-called "frivolous lawsuits" and "activist judges." (I would submit that the GOP has no problem with filing lawsuits and shopping for activist judges if it suits their political agenda. That is a matter for another post.)
Senator Ben Nelson accurately described the GOP's motivation when he said it was no surprise that the state GOP would do everything it can to keep Kerrey off the primary ballot, but he was "surprised that the party that claims to oppose frivolous lawsuits would file one." Nelson said he feels strongly about a party trying to limit voters' choices for partisan purposes: "It's not about residency requirements, it's about an election. And it may indicate how concerned they are with Senator Kerrey being on the ballot and working so diligently now to try to keep him off."
What the GOP's lawsuit indicates is that they know their weak field of candidates can't beat Bob Kerrey. That's why they're doing everything they can in this cynical attempt to keep Kerrey off the ballot and deprive Nebraska voters of the choice they deserve this fall. The GOP likes to brag about the alleged big lead Bruning and Stenberg had over Kerrey in a recent (and highly flawed) Rasmussen poll (Democrats were very under-sampled). Don't believe it. If the Nebraska GOP believed that Rasmussen poll, they wouldn't have filed this lawsuit. Their attitude to Bob Kerrey would be "bring it on." The GOP would love to beat Kerrey but deep inside they know Kerrey will win this fall.
Are Nebraska voters going to vote for a genuine war hero or an immature and ethically challenged A.G. who has never been in a tough race? Are Nebraska voters going to choose Don "Quixote" Stenberg (the Harold Stassen of Nebraska politics) or a member of the prestigious 9/11 Commission? We know the answer and so does the Nebraska GOP.
It all comes down to the fact that the Nebraska GOP is trying to steal the election before it even really begins. This lawsuit also shows the contempt that the Nebraska GOP has for Nebraska voters and their (justifiable) lack of confidence in their own candidates. Paul Johnson, Kerrey's campaign manager, described the lawsuit best: "It is an attempt to win by robbery what they would otherwise lose in an election."
**UPDATE** Lancaster County District Judge Steven Burns ruled Wednesday evening that Bob Kerrey's name can appear on the 2012 ballot for U.S. Senate. After hearing arguments from both sides on Wednesday, Burns dismissed the case, saying the state has no constitutional authority to impose a voter registration requirement as a qualification for candidacy.
Burns stated, "There is simply no evidence which supports the plaintiff's bare allegations"....
Judge Burns said an earlier Republican protest filed with Gale contained "no evidence that would establish any element of the crime of falsification of candidacy documents (or) any evidence that Mr. Kerrey did not intend to be a resident of this state and reside at the address he gave."
There is "no evidence to suggest that Mr. Kerrey knowingly and willfully violated any law of the State of Nebraska," the judge wrote. "What is before the court is nothing more (than) an accusation."
Within hours of Gov. Dave Heineman's 2012 State of the State address, NNN responded with a blistering, wholly-deserved assault on the deceptive tax cut proposal at its heart. This speech was absolutely shocking in its shameless manipulation of the press and general public, feeding them cheap rhetoric promising tax relief for working and middle-class Nebraska families that bore little-to-no-resemblance to the plan Heineman had actually presented.
The scary thing is, two months later, Heineman's tune hasn't changed a bit. Despite a $400 million-plus shortfall already projected for the state's next biennial budget and his own refusal to explain how exactly it would be paid for, Heineman's continued to project the fantasy that the Legislature could pass his entire tax cut proposal. He's stayed disciplined and unyielding in this message, no matter the mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Facing strong resistance by counties to his proposed elimination of the inheritance tax and difficulty justifying a cut in corporate taxes targeted towards bigger businesses, Heineman even settled upon a compromise. He's willing to accept an amended LB970 that will simply focus on the income tax and phase-in its cuts over three years. Last week, in a speech to the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, Heineman made a familiar argument explaining why these cuts are needed:
"As good as our economic picture is, many Nebraska low-income and middle-income families live from paycheck to paycheck. Right now, they're faced with a very difficult situation. Gas prices are skyrocketing, nearly dollars a gallon. Food prices are increasing. And, then, if you look at our income tax code, if your adjusted gross income is greater than $54,000 per year, you pay at the same marginal rate as Warren Buffett when he earns $54 million a year. That's not fair, and that's why we need to correct it.
"Our hard-working taxpayers need more discretionary income to take care of their families - especially with the rising food and gas prices. So, Senator Cornett and I have developed a tax relief package to help Nebraska families."
You know who will be helped more than anyone else under Heineman's tax cut proposal? That's right - Warren Buffett. And, just using Heineman's claims about Buffett's income, he'd enjoy a tax cut that's pretty close to what the average Nebraska family earns in income for the entire year. How does that do anything to improve this "fairness" Heineman is talking about?
The new Open Sky Policy Institute offers some great analysis of the amended LB970 that's particularly focused on its dangerous implications for a projected shortfall that would then be in excess of $600 million - or 8% of the entire state budget. Still, it's the figures showing how much families at different incomes actually stand to save that are the most revealing and blow a hole wide open in Heineman's continued claim that this is tax relief for "low-income and middle-income families."
If Heineman were really concerned about these families who live "from paycheck to paycheck," he wouldn't be trying to sign a bill that might as well be a check to Warren Buffett bigger than most Nebraskans' wages on their W-2. Heineman can talk all he wants about "rising food and gas prices," but the chief beneficiary of LB970 only has to be concerned with them in terms of managing his investments. Look - I don't like singling out Buffett just for being successful. But, this is precisely what Heineman has done to advance a tax cutting fraud against the people of our state.
In that same speech to the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce, Heineman repeated that LB970 is a choice between "tax relief for low-income and middle-income families or more spending for special interest groups." He also promised a "fight like they've never seen down there in the capitol" before launching into an attack on State Senator Steve Lathop and those few other Senators who've been willing to stand up for responsible budgeting that meets our state's commitments without setting us up for another crisis just a year down the road. Heineman called that priority "misguided."
Thankfully, I don't need to respond to this ludicrous and hypocritical attack since Friday's Lincoln Journal-Star editorial did so quite nicely - reminding readers of the gross mismanagement and incompetence that's wasted millions of taxpayer dollars under Heineman's watch. In fact, Lathrop's spent much of his time in the Legislature cleaning up Heineman's messes. I suppose it should come as little surprise that this hasn't been appreciated by the Governor.
Debate on LB970 is set to begin later this afternoon. While I support and have written extensively about the need for a progressive restructuring of our state's income tax, that's not what this bill is. Not at all. This plan doesn't put working and middle-class families first - it only exploits our values through manipulative political rhetoric that treats our families needs as a cheap talking point. It's time for our State Senators to stand up to this deception by defeating LB970 and demanding an honest debate on tax cuts in next year's legislative session.
**Update - 03/20/12, 11:00 pm:Please note that the above article was written and published before the AM2572 compromise was reached, which allowed LB970 to advance earlier today from first round debate. This amendment eliminates the tax cuts for Nebraska's top income tax bracket and managed to effectively neutralize the two months worth of deception by Gov. Dave Heineman criticized above. This is a loss for Heineman, but I cannot say the resulting average annual tax cut of $52 is an actual victory for working and middle-class Nebraska families. NNN appreciates the work of those State Senators who reached this compromise and will have more to say on this subject soon.**
President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election campaign officially kicked-off in Nebraska on Thursday night with a very well-attended office opening in Omaha that included a showing of the promotional documentary The Road We've Traveled.
However, the celebration really began earlier in the day when the Lincoln Journal-Star published the following excerpt from an interview with former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel:
Hagel, a Republican who represented Nebraska in the Senate from 1997 to 2009, is co-chairman of President Barack Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board....
Hagel said he believes Obama has "done a good job overall" as president. "I think he's one of the finest, most decent individuals I've ever known and one of the smartest.
"I try to remind my Republican friends when they hammer him that this is a guy who inherited the biggest agenda of problems in this country ever inherited by a president since Franklin Roosevelt, and maybe worse. Roosevelt didn't inherit two wars that were messes with a global financial crisis."
You can read the rest of that inteview with Hagel here. The main focus is on foreign affairs, but Hagel didn't hold back in his praise for Obama, defending him on the national budget and expressing his hope that the first two years of Obama's 2nd term would be his most productive:
"Everywhere you look, this guy had problems to try to dig his way out of it. And I think he deserves some credit. Maybe we aren't as far down the road as we could be, but I don't think we've gone backward. We've gone in the right direction. Any president ... first two years of his administration he's really dealing with the previous administration's budgets .... That's why I said it's the fifth and sixth years of a two-term president that give him the biggest window."
Hagel's 1996 Senate campaign is widely-credited as the beginning of the Republican Party's near-takeover of Nebraska politics, and it wasn't long ago at all that he was still playing king-maker for the NEGOP. Still, Hagel continues to sound disillusioned with his party, declaring in the interview, "I don't know what the Republican Party is." Hagel also sounds outright dismayed with the posturing of the GOP Presidential candidates on Iran:
"You've got to break into some creative thinking here ... [D]on't get caught in these damn traps. If you listen to the Republican presidential candidates, they can hardly race to say who would bomb Iran first; it's just amazing."
Hagel's voice continues to be an important one, and he's by no means alone among moderate and even conservative Republicans who genuinely appreciate the job Obama has done and the challenges that he's faced as President.
I also know that independent streak that runs through Hagel is shared by Nebraskans of every political stripe. In this year's election, a whole lot of Nebraskans who may be registered as Republicans will be looking for better options than what their party is offering. That's because there's a hunger in this state for genuine problem-solving and less political back-and-forth - which bodes very well not only for Obamaha 2012 but also for Bob Kerrey and many of our independent-minded progressives running down ballot as well.
It's not my intent to hijack NNN's entire front-page with news from the Michaelis For Legislature campaign, but child welfare is a special issue in this year's legislative session on which State Senator Colby Coash just happens to have been a leader in the wrong direction. That's why the campaign put out the following press release earlier this week:
District 27 legislative candidate Kyle Michaelis welcomes recent progress by the Nebraska Legislature asserting its rightful place in the child welfare reform debate. Last week, a series of bills was advanced from 2nd round consideration and should soon proceed to a final vote. Michaelis notes that these bills have thus far advanced without opposition. This is a marked contrast from the 2011 legislative session, during which State Senator Colby Coash was the leading voice against legislative action on child welfare reform.
"Last year, my opponent - Senator Coash - pleaded with his colleagues to do nothing while our state's child welfare system was coming apart at the seams," states Michaelis. "When the vast majority of State Senators could see the writing on the wall that this privatization scheme wasn't working for Nebraska families, Colby Coash was on the floor of the Legislature begging that they 'listen to the governor' and trust DHHS."
On March 29, 2011, Coash cast one of only seven votes against Legislative Bill 95, which would have required accreditation of lead contractors and placed a moratorium on further privatization. Since then, the need for legislative action has only grown more apparent as reports by the State Auditor and the Performance Audit Committee revealed the complete failure of an ideologically-driven push for privatization that was implemented without concrete goals or even a strategic plan.
"In 2010, Colby Coash was already hearing from families and providers that the state was headed in the wrong direction. When asked to take action, he said there was nothing he could do. But, that wasn't true," Michaelis retorts. "Sen. Coash chose to stand in the way of progress while our most vulnerable children were thrust into a needless crisis and the state wasted tens of millions of taxpayer dollars."
Michaelis thanks the Legislature's Health and Human Services Committee and its chair, Lincoln State Senator Kathy Campbell, for their dedication to Nebraska's children in correcting the mistakes of the last two years.
"Hopefully, the state is back on a path of responsible reform of our child welfare system. However, it's going to take continued leadership in the Legislature," adds Michaelis. "District 27 voters will always be able to count on me to ask the tough questions, demand accountability, and put children ahead of politics and ideology."
I would be remiss if I didn't note those six other state senators who joined Coash in directly opposing legislative action during last year's session - Tom Hansen, Ken Schilz, Tony Fulton, Tyson Larson, John Nelson, and Scott Lautenbaugh. It shouldn't have taken an additional year's worth of evidence that their hands-off approach to DHHS & the Heineman Administration was a complete disaster for Nebraska's children and taxpayers for them to finally realize that something wasn't working and that the Legislature needed to lead.
Even now, when none of those Senators has the audacity to actually vote against the Health and Human Services Committee's work, we've seen Lautenbaugh emerge as the mouthpiece for continuing the same mentality. In second round debate, he warned his colleagues that taking actions means, "This is becoming our baby ... We're calling the tune. We're setting the policy. We're setting the standards. It's on us now."
What Lautenbaugh doesn't understand is that the Legislature always had this responsibility and should have never allowed its authority to be usurped by the Heineman Administration on these crucial policy decisions. Of course, Lautenbaugh might be able to make a philosophical argument for this warning if he'd ever been a voice for accountability on child welfare. But, no one will find an instance of his pointing a finger at Heineman & DHHS declaring that the failures of the last two years are "their baby" and "on them." He's just enabling and making excuses.
None of this suggests that any of the bills nearing final passage are the cure to all that ails our state's child welfare system. More work remains, and we'll need good people to do it who won't be focused on pushing a political agenda or making excuses. Michaelis for Legislature is just one opportunity to make such a change and finally demand some leadership in the state capitol. I happen to think it's an important one and hope you do as well.
Tuesday was a great day for our state - especially the city of Omaha. The passage of City Councilman Ben Gray's Equal Rights Ordinance creating new protections from employment discrimination for gay and transgender workers was a giant step forward on an issue that's been important to me since long before the New Nebraka Network even began. Today, on NNNs 7th birthday, that progress is the best birthday present for which we could have hoped!
Although I've written in support of such protections several times over the years, I can't claim any credit for this victory. That belongs with the people of Omaha who stood up for a city where no ones livelihood is threatened because of who they are and whom they love. This victory also belongs to four Councilmen - Gray, Garry Gernandt, Pete Festersen, and Chris Jerram - who dared to listen and to lead. I am inspired by their example and plan to demonstrate the same courage in my campaign for the Nebraska Legislature in Lincoln's 27th District. I can win by doing so with your support!
So much of campaigning is about telling people what they want to hear. But, that's never been what NNN is about. This website began seven years ago today with the express goal of changing Nebraska - not by changing the character of its people but by awakening the best of our values and our hopes for what the state's future should be. The Michaelis For Legislature campaign cannot be anything but a continuation of that effort.
A candidate will sometimes hear that he or she won't be able to do any good without getting elected. There's truth in your being able to accomplish a lot in office, but we can't forget how much more there is to be gained by running a campaign that's about more than winning - and winning precisely because of it. With your help, that's the kind of race we will run and win in LD27.
Readers may recall the Legislative Agenda For A New Nebaska I pieced together a few months ago. This was my good-faith attempt to put forward a positive vision for our state with realistic goals for genuine progress. It was never written as an agenda for an actual legislative campaign and won't serve that purpose in this election. However, the list most certainly offers an accurate depiction of the priorities and principles that would guide me as a State Senator.
Here's a quick reminder of what was included in the Legislative Agenda For A New Nebraska - and a taste of what issues you could expect me to lead upon in the Unicameral:
Prologue: "What Would A New Nebraska Look Like?"
Issue #1: Pay State Senators A Decent Salary
Issue #2: Restructure Income Tax To Help Middle Class Families
Issue #3: Ensure Elections About More Than Money (Reform CFLA)
Issue #4: Restore Accountability At DHHS & Assert Legislative Authority
Issue #5: End Discrimination Against Nebraska's LGBT Community
Issue #6: Make Public Power An Environmental Asset
Issue #7: Remove Politics From Redistricting
Issue #8: Create A Consumer-Focused Health Insurance Exchange
Issue #9: Redirect Property Tax Credit To Nebraska Homeowners
Issue #10: Elect County Offices On Nonpartisan Ballot
(Read the Omaha World-Herald endorsement of Councilman Gray's anti-discrimination ordinance. Also check out this great TV ad by Bold Nebraska that ran on Monday night newscasts! - promoted by Kyle Michaelis)
The debate over an equal rights ordinance in Omaha seems so simple. No one should have to fear losing their job because of who they are or who they love. Most major companies and cities have similar protections in place.
But the arguments against have quickly moved from a vitriolic, almost hateful attack against homosexuality as a lifestyle, to a more cold, cynical political argument, as demonstrated by Leavenworth Street:
...[I]t is our understanding that [Councilman Ben] Gray is still trying to go forward with his version of the ordinance, and that Councilman Franklin Thompson is still the deciding vote. Should Thompson go through with it and vote in favor, we have been informed that the villagers plan to rally.
The plan goes, that those against the ordinance will collect the needed 17,000 signatures (about 10K less than were needed to spark a Mayoral recall vote), and put the issue on the ballot for the 2013 Mayoral and City Council elections. At that point, it would cause all of those who were for the ordinance to defend their vote, particularly on that issue.
If that were the case, Thompson would likely find his reelection chances dramatically changed in his West O District. Chris Jerram would likely find his chances swerved in his heavily Catholic district. Heck, Ben Gray might discover that the pastors in his district are not crazy about the ordinance either.
But hey, that's politics, yeah? That Gernandt may have found an "out" with his plan could let his colleagues breath a sigh of relief. Or if they reject it, it could just ratchet things up.
We only know that it has the potential to be a volatile issue in 2013.
Even for Leavenworth, that's pretty cynical. But it also misreads Omahans quite a bit on the issue. This isn't gay marriage or anything so radical in the views of most Nebraskans (though I'd wager that public opinion on that has shifted over the last decade). This is about preventing discrimination in the workplace, and as a new poll shows, it's something that Omahans overwhelmingly support.
A majority of Omaha registered voters favor changing city ordinances to add protections against discrimination for gay and transgender residents, according to a poll commissioned by a local group of gay rights supporters.
The survey found 60 percent of voters citywide favor ordinances to prohibit discrimination against gay and transgender residents, while approximately 25 percent oppose them.
The poll, conducted by respected polling firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, confirms what earlier polling in 2011 had shown, that such protections enjoy broad support among the public. We can only hope that the Omaha City Council reflects the views of the public at large, and doesn't cave to the threats of a cynical few.
Last week, Lincoln attorney Korey Reiman filed for the 1st Congressional District seat and began his challenge to long time incumbent Representative Jeff Fortenberry. Unlike Fortenberry (who grew up in Baton Rouge, Louisiana), Reiman is a life long Nebraskan who grew up on a farm in Pawnee County. Reiman told me that he began working in the fields at the age of six and that he helped out on his family farm until he went to law school. Reiman attended Peru State College, where he played tight end on the football team. Subsequent to that, he graduated from the Nebraska College of Law in 1999.
Since Reiman graduated from law school, his law practice has focused on veterans' benefits and criminal defense. Reiman became interested in veterans benefits because one of his grandfathers served in World War I and his other grandfather served in World War II. His father was a veteran of the Vietnam War. Because of his family background, Reiman has great respect and appreciation for what our veterans have done to defend our freedom.
Currently, Korey's law practice is exclusively devoted to the defense of individuals charged with crimes. What this means is that Reiman is making sure his clients are granted their rights to due process and a jury trial pursuant to the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Amendments. He told me his law practice has made him appreciate the genius of the Founding Fathers in setting up a system where people can freely exercise their rights and govern themselves.
Mr. Reiman is married to Melissa, who is a registered nurse at the Madonna Rehabilitation System in Lincoln. They presently have three school age children.
Reiman got into the race because Fortenberry has lost touch with the values of his constituents in the 1st Congressional District. In our conversation, he told me that he was strongly opposed to Fortenberry's vote in favor of the Ryan plan that would privatize Medicare and cut taxes for oil companies, banks and insurance companies. Reiman is also opposed to the privatization of Social Security. When I talked to him, Reiman said that we can't trust the same people on Wall Street with Social Security and Medicare who bankrupted the country in 2008 through their greed and stupidity.
Reiman also got into the race due to his concerns over women's health issues. He is opposed to the so-called Blunt Amendment that Fortenberry co-sponsored in the House. The Fortenberry/Blunt amendment would allow institutions, small businesses and others to refuse to provide medical services that violate their beliefs. What this means is that Fortenberry's legislation would make it so that employers would be free to decide whether to cover contraception for their employees. Apparently, Fortenberry's idea of freedom of choice doesn't extend to all Americans, just to those who do the hiring. Reiman believes that women's (and others) health care coverage is their business and not that of their employers. In other words, employees should have the freedom to seek whatever health care services they deem necessary and that the boss doesn't have the power to make those choices for them.
Korey Reiman is challenging Fortenberry because he believes that Fortenberry has become overly influenced by the well heeled special interests that finance his campaigns and has lost touch with the concerns of the citizens of his district. It's pretty obvious that Fortenberry has prioritized the interests of the wealthy over everybody else's. Reiman said a good example of Fortenberry's loss of touch with Nebraska values was his differential treatment of tax cuts for the wealthy and the middle class. Fortenberry had no problem voting for subsidies for the oil companies and the corporate tax cut in the Ryan plan. Fortenberry never held up those tax cuts or demanded that they be paid for. In contrast, Fortenberry vigorously opposed and ultimately voted against the payroll tax cut that would've put $1,000.00 in the average worker's pocket. Reiman was disturbed by the disconnect between Fortenberry's support of trickle down economic theory that prioritizes tax cuts for the wealthy and his opposition to tax cuts for the middle class.
Reiman is a decided underdog in this race. No Democrat has won this seat since the great LBJ landslide of 1964. However, the history of politics is littered with upsets. This year, the Republican Party appears to be bent on self destruction and some seasoned political observers believe that we could very well see a replay of 1964. I'm glad Reiman is running because Fortenberry needs a challenger. It's time for the voters of C.D.-01 to elect a Congressman who represents our values and priorities - not those of the wealthy special interests who have financed Fortenberry's career.
Art. III, Sec. 7 of the Nebraska State Constitution: Legislators; terms; effect of redistricting; election; salary; expenses; mileage. ...Each member shall be nominated and elected in a nonpartisan manner and without any indication on the ballot that he or she is affiliated with or endorsed by any political party or organization.
Early in my campaign for Legislative District 27, I have given absolutely no one a reason to doubt my intention to be an independent-minded state senator who will listen to every side of an issue and do what's right for Nebraska. I am a firm believer in the ideal and the genius behind our nonpartisan Unicameral and have devoted a considerable chunk of my life to defending that vision when it's been threatened by undue influence from outside political forces. That's included the heavy hand of a governor with unprecedented and dangerous sway over our state's Legislature, which has too often failed to live up to its responsibility as a separate and co-equal branch of government. It's also included a political party - specifically, the Republican Party - as it's resorted to a new approach of threats and intimidation to break the independent spirit upheld by our finest State Senators and cherished by Nebraska voters.
No matter the betrayal of our citizens, the current leadership of the Nebraska Republican Party has taken direct aim at the nonpartisanship of the Legislature - as enshrined in the state constitution - because it stands in the way of coveted one-party dominion over all political power in state government. I have pushed back as best I've been able through my voice and my ideas. With this campaign, I intend to continue pushing back as a vigorous defender of that essential nonpartisanship our state constitution demands and Nebraska voters deserve. But, ultimately, it is going to fall to the voters to stand up to this partisan encroachment by electing state senators who haven't lost touch with their values and will be focused on their constituents' interests rather than political games. I know in my heart that I can and will be such a state senator if District 27 voters in Lincoln only give me the chance.
Regardless of the outcome of that election - which is still many months away - I can already claim success in the NEGOP's laying plain its intent for the Legislature in terms that would come as quite the shock to most Nebraskans. A curious article by Nebraska Watchdog raises the question of how I'll be able to continue my current employment while a candidate for the Legislature - which is predicated on its being a nonpartisan office and my being a nonpartisan candidate. NEGOP Executive Director Jordan McGrain insists that constitutional prerogative is wrong, declaring the nonpartisanship of our legislative races "a fallacy." I say he's wrong because I know from talking to voters of every political stripe that it's not "a fallacy" when they're considering who will best represent their interests in the Legislature.
More than the attack on me, the danger of partisan encroachment that should cause the greatest concern for Nebraskans is the NEGOP's early endorsement of four candidates for open legislative seats in this year's election. In January - with almost six weeks remaining before the filing deadline for these offices - the NEGOP amended its constitution, so it could specifically support Mike Hilgers in District 21 (Lincoln), Acela Turco in District 31 (Omaha), Richard Carter in District 45 (Bellevue), and John Murante in District 49 (Gretna). This is unfathomable to me. In these districts, other Republicans who might have been interested in running for Legislature were actively discouraged from doing so in favor of those who'd been sufficiently vetted and - most likely - traded away the independence in their thinking and voting that the NEGOP has targeted as its true enemy.
Blocked from doing so by the traditions and rules in the Unicameral - not to mention the state constitution - the NEGOP is attempting to instill party discipline from the get-go with candidates who will respond to its dictates while voters' voices are diminished. This is a very dangerous precedent against which I could not be more opposed. That's not as a Democrat. It's not even as a Progressive. It's as a Nebraskan. And, if these stakes are clear to voters, we're going to see that they feel the same way in this year's election.
I know who I am. I know what it is I've been standing for and fighting for all these years. It's never been a political party. It's been Nebraska. I have a seven year body of work supporting that commitment, and I will continue to put people ahead of politics every day of this campaign.
I'm not blind to how politics works. I can't and won't deny that political affiliation is a factor in relationships between State Senators and who supports their campaigns. It's often a pretty good indicator of ideological leanings as well. But, that doesn't make nonpartisanship "a fallacy." More than anything else, nonpartisanship is about priorities. I have a long record standing up for the independence of the Unicameral and the integrity of our state constitution. This isn't about me or my employment. This is about presenting a better vision for Nebraska's future. It's that vision that's going to be the focus of this campaign, and party has nothing to do with it.
Earlier today, Former Governor and Senator Bob Kerrey surprised the political world and announced he would run for the U.S. Senate after all. Just a few weeks ago, Kerrey said he wouldn't run and made a decision that was based on what he believed was best for his family. Kerrey said today that his wife urged him to run because she was aware that he wasn't happy with his original decision.
In a written statement, Kerrey said: "Doing things the conventional way has never been my strong suit. This afternoon, I will file to become a candidate for the United States Senate in Nebraska. I came to realize that my previous decision was the easy one, not the right one. My commitment to serve Nebraska and America and to be part of the debate about the challenges we face was too strong to dismiss."
We here at New Nebraska welcome Kerrey into the race. We believe that a contested primary between Bob Kerrey and Chuck Hassebrook is a win-win situation for the State and the Nebraska Democratic Party. Obviously, Chuck Hassebrook is the heavy underdog in this race but if he should pull the upset, he would be seen as a giant killer. A primary win for Hassebrook would give him instant credibility nationally and put him in a good position to win in the fall. An upset would be similar to Dave Heineman's victory over Tom Osborne in the 2006 GOP gubernatorial primary. As we all know, Heineman's stunning victory has made him a major player on the Nebraska political scene.
On the other hand, a contested primary is also good for Bob Kerrey. He hasn't been on the ballot since 1994 and the primary election will give him an excellent chance to work out any kinks in his campaign and reintroduce himself to Nebraska voters. Kerrey is an "experienced politician who has a proven track record of engaging voters with a winning personality," said David Kramer, the former head of the Nebraska Republican Party. If Kerrey wins the primary, he is validated as a Nebraskan, dispelling the notion that he is some kind of carpet bagger from New York City. As we've discussed here before, the charge by Nebraska Republicans that Kerrey is a carpet bagger is hypocritical and just pure partisan politics.
The winner of the Nebraska Senatorial primary will be in an excellent position to win the general election. Whoever the winner is will have proven himself on the campaign trail and will be well financed. The Nebraska Senate election could very well be one of the marquee races in the nation this fall.
Lest we forget, the Nebraska GOP has fielded a weak crop of candidates this election cycle. Attorney General Jon Bruning has exploited his public service for vast personal financial gain, favors Medicare privatization and supports tax cuts for Wall Street and oil companies. State Treasurer Don "Quixote" Stenberg is a perennial candidate who has already lost three previous U.S. Senate races. Moreover, Stenberg is backed by radicals who believe that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional. State Senator Deb Fischer's campaign is going nowhere. She can't raise much money and she is tied down serving in the Legislature until Mid-April.
Whoever emerges from the Nebraska Senate primary will be a nominee and candidate that Democrats and Progressives can be proud of and can support enthusiastically. There has been talk in the state's media that the Nebraska Democratic party is weak and is even on life support. The fact that Bob Kerrey and Chuck Hassebrook are running for the U.S. Senate proves that the Nebraska Democratic Party is alive and well. I'm very confident that our nominee will win the election this fall. Now let's go out and make it happen!
Friends: On Monday, I filed as a candidate to be the next State Senator for Lincoln's Legislative District 27. Sorry I didn't get around to posting about this sooner, but I'm already learning the hard way just how little time devoting myself entirely to this campaign is going to leave for leisurely activities like blogging about Nebraska politics.
Since I can't take the time readers deserve explaining how I came to this decision and what it means for NNN's future, I will at least refer you to the Lincoln Journal-Star's excellent coverage of my campaign announcement:
A voice for progressive Nebraskans on the Internet said Monday he will challenge incumbent Sen. Colby Coash in southwest and central Lincoln's legislative District 27. Kyle Michaelis is the only declared challenger of Coash, who won election in 2008 against Lincoln City Councilman Dan Marvin by 79 votes.
Michaelis said voters in the district are going to want a progressive choice, and he couldn't pass up the opportunity to stand up for the values he has been defending for years. He said he would be a bold leader in the Legislature.
"A state senator needs to be willing to ask tough questions and speak hard truths," he said. "Politics as usual won't cut it when Lincoln voters send me to the state Capitol."
Michaelis has been writing political commentary for about seven years on his Web site, New Nebraska Network, which he founded. He describes the blog as thoughtful commentary that holds elected officials accountable and challenges the status quo in Nebraska politics. He says he is committed to upholding those values in state government.
"We have a child welfare system in crisis where an ideological push for privatization has trumped our state's responsibilities to children and taxpayers. At the same time, we have a tax cut debate that's being driven by political rhetoric rather than delivering real relief to middle-class families," he said. "We deserve better. The time for change is now"....
Going up against an incumbent will mean Michaelis will have to devote considerable time and attention to fundraising. He will have a lot of catching up to do, he said. "But I'm willing to do the work, and I think that will carry the day," he said.
Here's to new challenges. And - yes - I have some appreciation for just how great a challenge it's going to be. But, this is just too critical a time and too exciting an opportunity for me to have passed it up.
For seven years now, I've been striving to build a better Nebraska by offering my voice, passions, and ideas to our state's political discourse. I haven't always been right, but I've been consistent in my beliefs and genuine in my efforts. Through this work, I have earned respect and appreciation from many readers but have no illusions about their reach into the ranks of the average Nebraska family in LD27.
This campaign is a new beginning. I've been writing for a long time. I have a lot of ideas for what progressive change should mean for Nebraska's future. But, right now, it's important that I take some time to listen and ensure that I'm communicating my vision in a way that makes sense in people's lives. Readers can trust that I won't run away from the values and principles that have guided me through the years, but I also have to convince voters that this campaign will be a collaboration and that it's their voice I want to be heard.
I hope I can count on you for your support. Trust me - I won't take it for granted. And, in case you were wondering, NNN isn't going anywhere. My own role at the site will be diminished while I focus on winning in LD27, but my friend Ronaldo continues to do an excellent job with his insightful articles and I'm hopeful that other contributors will pick up the slack in my absence as well.
Thank you for all you do. Be talking with you soon.
The biggest economic news in the last few weeks has been the swift and sudden rise in gasoline prices. Here in Lincoln, gas prices have gone up around 50 cents per gallon in the last 30 to 60 days. Economists are telling us that gas prices will probably go up to $4.00 per gallon and they may even rise to $5.00 per gallon.
If the usual economic laws of supply and demand were applicable, gas prices should be declining - not rising. The current run-up in prices comes despite sinking demand in the U.S. "Petrol demand is as low as it's been since April 1997," says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for the Oil Price Information Service.
At the same time, after declining to levels not seen since the 1940s, U.S. crude production began rising again in 2009. The number of rigs in U.S. oil fields has more than quadÂrupled in the past three years to 1,272, according to the Baker Hughes rig count. Including those in natural gas fields, the United States now has more rigs at work than the entire rest of the world.
If the Right Wing's "drill baby drill" mantra was accurate, one would think that all of this new production would reduce gas prices. However, much of the gas increases are due to speculative money that's flowed into gasoline futures contracts since the beginning of the year, mostly from hedge funds and large money managers. "People are properly puzzled by the fact that we're using less gas than we have in years, yet we're paying more ... We've seen about $11 billion of speculative money come in on the long side of gas futures," Kloza says. "Each of the last three weeks we've seen a record net long position being taken."
Another factor causing gas prices to soar is that the US oil industry is increasing its exports of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel. Compared to a year ago, exports of gasoline have tripled - at a time when the price of gasoline is 42 cents a gallon more expensive at the pump. If the exports were not taking place, Charles Ebinger, director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings Institute, says it might be possible to argue the refiners would be flooding the market with gasoline which would reduce prices. "If people knew there was a surplus of gasoline, you might get some entrepreneurs in to sell it at lower prices to stimulate demand," he says.
It's pretty obvious that this run up in gasoline prices isn't related to any kind of supply and demand. The major causes of this rise in gas prices is due to market manipulation by Wall Street and the oil companies. Unfortunately, this sudden rise in gas prices is endangering the fragile and nascent economic recovery. Finally, for the first time in around five years, we're getting some good economic news and all of this may be placed in jeopardy due to the actions of the greedy few who are abusing their wealth to the detriment of everybody else.
Just where do Jon Bruning and the Republican members of the Nebraska Congressional delegation stand when it comes to the oil companies and Wall Street? Most of our regular readers will not be surprised to know that they stand firmly with the oil companies and Wall Street. (Unfortunately, very few Nebraska voters probably understand this.)
As a starting point, all of the Nebraska Congressional Republicans voted last year for the Ryan Medicare privatization plan. Moreover, Jon Bruning has come out in support of the Ryan plan. I've spent most of my time here discussing the negative impact the Ryan plan would have on senior citizens. However, it should also be noted that the Ryan plan reduces the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 25%. What this means is that Bruning and the Nebraska Congressional Republicans support a tax cut for the likes of Exxon-Mobil and Goldman Sachs. Why in the world do these people need another tax cut? That is just ridiculous since these are some of the most profitable corporations in the history of the world. The oil companies routinely report quarterly profit amounts in the billions - not millions. And as we've discussed here, these companies are currently manipulating the market to profit off of rising gas prices while subjecting most Americans to misery at the gas pump.
It doesn't end with the Ryan plan's corporate tax cut. In 2011, Terry, Fortenberry and Smith all voted against an amendment that would have ended subsidies to oil companies. Currently, the taxpayers provide an annual $4 billion subsidy to the oil industry. What this vote means is that Terry, Fortenberry and Smith voted to coninue a taxpayer giveaway to an industry that's never been more profitable and that is threatening to wreck the economic recovery.
I also need to mention that Bruning and the Republicans in the Nebraska Congressional delegation oppose the 2010 Dodd Frank Wall Street reform bill. The Dodd-Frank Bill was passed to prevent the abuses by Wall Street and banks that caused the recession and it requires the Commodity Future Trading Commission to put limits on oil speculation as well. Imposing limits on oil speculation has the potential to reduce the price of gasoline and heating oil. Senator Ben Nelson voted to reduce speculation and the Nebraska Republicans voted to continue the practice unabated. At the same time, Bruning made it clear that he sided with Wall Street on Dodd Frank and apparently opposes any limits on oil speculation.
What this all means is that Jon Bruning and the Republican members of Nebraska's Congressional delegation have sided with the extremely wealthy special interests discussed here and have thrown most of the voters here in Nebraska under the bus. Apparently, the likes of Bruning and Terry care more about the oil companies and Wall Street than they do about workers, teachers, farmers in their home state. It is incumbent upon our candidates and all Nebraska Democrats to point out again and again that Bruning and Terry aren't on our side - they stand with the malefactors of great wealth. It is high time that Nebraska voters truly understand where we stand and where the Republicans stand. We Democrats stand for the people of Nebraska and the Nebraska Republicans stand for powerful out-of-state special interests.
