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!
This summer, it came as no surprise when the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled our state's Campaign Finance Limitation Act (CFLA) unconstitutional. After a series of radical U.S. Supreme Court decisions - of which Citizens United is the most notorious - it had become clear our state's using the threat of public financing for ones opponent as a check on a candidate's campaign spending would no longer pass muster with the Court's rightwing activist majority.
The Nebraska Legislature's 2012 session saw some renewed effort to repeal the CFLA, but the leaders of that effort didn't push very hard knowing they had this one in the bag as a challenge to the law worked its way through the courts. These opponents of the CFLA were well-served leaving the heavy lifting to the court. Had repeal been pushed harder in the Legislature, a few Senators might have put in some work towards an alternative - progressive reforms that would fit new constitutional parameters while protecting the integrity and intent of our original campaign finance laws.
But, there was no proactive progressive leadership on this issue at the capitol. That's left us where we are today - effectively starting from scratch with laws on the books that can't be enforced, leaving opponents to make an easy case that they should simply be removed.
This follows other recent issues-focused videos from my campaign on wind energy and child welfare reform. As fellow believers in a new Nebraska, I hope you'll watch them, share them, and be sure to leave a comment telling me what you think.
I'm proud to be running a campaign devoted to a progessive vision for our state's future and - with less than six weeks before the election - we're still just getting started! You can help us continue spreading the word about our campaign by making an online contribution. Also remember to like Kyle Michaelis for Legislature on Facebook to stay up-to-date and be the first to see our next videos in this ongoing series.
This just breaks my heart. When I last wrote about the struggle for equal rights in Nebraska, a petition was underway in Lincoln to repeal or to force a referendum vote on the city's new protections from housing and employment discrimination against gay and transgender people. Unfortunately, this effort succeeded in gathering the required signatures to block these protections from taking effect, and they currently remain in limbo while city leaders debate between several options for putting the issue to a vote.
If it wasn't bad enough that progress has stalled in our capital city, the Omaha World-Herald reported last week on plans for a similar petition drive to actually move Omaha backwards by repealing its LGBT protections enacted earlier this year. The petition language is under review. Signature-gathering could begin any day with the intent of putting the referendum on the ballot in Omaha's 2013 city elections this spring.
Of course, the whole idea of voting on people's rights is patently offensive. Worse is the unintended irony of the group organizing this latest petition drive calling itself the Omaha Liberty Project. Whatever their name, it won't hide that the only "liberty" they care about is an imagined right to discriminate and to treat others as second-class citizens.
That charade will play out as it will. For now, what concerns me is the response of the community that will ultimately be asked to sign these petitions and potentially vote on whether family, friends, neighbors, and co-workers should be able to be fired just because of who they are and whom they love. The answer to that question is an obvious "no" in my understanding of the city. But, admittedly, I've never lived in Omaha and am not an expert on the community. I was, however, born and raised in the Catholic Church's Omaha Diocese - and can't help being deeply disturbed by what I'm seeing on this issue from its current leadership.
Our friends at the Objective Conservative blog have obtained and published the following letter from Archbishop George Lucas to Omaha priests:
"Dear Father,
You will soon learn from the local media about an effort that is underway to repeal the City of Omaha's sexual orientation anti-discrimination ordinance. The sponsor of this initiative - the Heritage Coalition - must collect 12,000 signatures from October to November to place the ordinance on the spring (2013) mayoral ballot. The sponsor believes that if given the opportunity, Omahans will vote to repeal this ordinance.
Representatives of the Heritage Coalition may try to solicit your support. As pastor of your parish, you are free to exercise your discretion in determining if and how you want to involve yourself or your parishioners in this effort which addresses an important moral issue. Examples of your involvement may include speaking about the issue in your parish, giving petitioners access to your parish events, scheduling information nights at your parish to discuss the issue, providing informational handouts to your parishioners, etc. If you and your parishioners choose to participate in this petition drive, I ask that there be no undue disruption of parish liturgies, nor distraction from the important moral issues at stake in national and state elections this fall.
You can contact Deacon Tim McNeil if you have questions about this ballot initiative. In the meantime, thank you for the care you provide the souls entrusted to you.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Archbishop George Lucas
While this letter is careful to avoid outright endorsement of the petition drive, it doesn't take much reading between the lines to see where its sympathies lie. Lucas is explicitly opening the doors of Omaha parishes to petitioners seeking the right to discriminate against the LGBT community.
I would love to take heart from Lucas' framing this as "an important moral issue." One might almost convince himself of some slight ambiguity on what moral issue Lucas really thinks is being addressed. But, it's in this ambiguity that Lucas shows his true colors because Catholic teachings are quite clear. As I've done in the past, allow me to refer you to the Mission Statement of the Nebraska Catholic Conference - over which Lucas is one of three presiding bishops:
Fundamental to Catholic tradition and teaching are a belief in and commitment to the inherent dignity of every human being - the clearest reflection of God among us....
Scripture teaches that God has special concern for the poor and vulnerable. All persons have a right to participate in the economic life of society. The Nebraska Catholic Conference...is an advocate for economic policies and conditions which uphold the dignity and value of each person....
All persons are entitled to participate in society in a manner which acknowledges and respects their dignity as members of the human community. The Nebraska Catholic Conference represents a tradition which opposes oppression, exploitation, discrimination, and disrespect. The Conference is an advocate for social policies and conditions which promote justice and bolster the dignity and value of each person.
These are the values of the Catholic Church I know, but they are not the values reflected in the above letter by Archbishop Lucas. Unless the Catholic Church no longer believes in "the inherent dignity of every human being" and no longer "opposes oppression, exploitation, discrimination, and disrespect," this outrageous and degrading petition effort has no place in Omaha churches except being denounced as an "important moral issue" that every Catholic should oppose.
After Deb Fischer's campaign released a June poll that showed her leading in Nebraska's Senate race by 25%, there's some cause for genuine excitement in this weekend's Omaha World-Herald poll showing that Bob Kerrey has closed that gap to 10% in the last three months. That's a strong surge by Kerrey supporting a claim to momentum as October approaches.
Of course, a poll that shows Kerrey still trailing Fischer 42%-52% isn't going to cause complete jubilation in the Kerrey campaign with only 6 weeks until the election. The gap remains even wider (16%) among "likely voters", but it's hard to say what that means when nothing is known of the World-Herald's likely voter-model.
If likely voters are just those who showed up in 2010, Kerrey was never going to win this race in the first place. If Nebraska's electorate looks more like 2006 or 2008....well, in that case, Kerrey has some momentum and enough history of magic on the campaign trail that Karl Rove and those rightwing Super PACs are certain to keep a very close eye on this race in the weeks ahead.
There's plenty more that can be said about the World-Herald's new poll. Of particular note, President Barack Obama is tied at 44% with Republican nominee Mitt Romney in Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District. Keep in mind that polling in early October 2008 had Obama losing to Senator John McCain in the 2nd CD 40%-53%. Obama went on to make history winning the district and - four years later - he's in an even stronger position to do it again.
OBAMAHA 2 - I like the sound of that. Should be an exciting six weeks ahead. Stay tuned!
Nationally, there's a lot of talk about Republican candidates distancing themselves from their party's presidential nominee - Mitt Romney - after video surfaced of him attacking 47% of the population as "dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it." Romney also explained that he didn't care about these people because: "I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
In U.S. history, you'd be hard-pressed finding a single statement exhibiting more contempt for more Americans by a presidential nominee - especially so soon before an election when writing off close to 50% of the population looks suspiciously like campaign suicide. Republican candidates across the country recognize this and have taken steps to prevent Romney's attack on 47% of Americans from becoming a suicide pact. That's what we've seen in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nevada, Hawaii, Virginia, and even North Dakota.
The national press can now add Nebraska's own Deb Fischer to the list of GOP candidates running away from Romney. Had they been listening to Fischer's Thursday interview on KLIN's "Drive Time Lincoln", they would have heard the following:
Drive Time Lincoln: "The Republican candidate for president, Mitt Romney...made some comments at a fundraiser....The "47% comments" related to those getting some form of government help and something along the lines of him not caring about their votes saying that they feel they're victims. What do you make of those comments?"
Deb Fischer (R-NE): "You know, I'm running my own campaign and I have my own perspective on that. People who have followed my career in the Legislature know that I believe it's very important for government to set priorities. One of those responsibilities of government is helping those who truly can't help themselves."
Fischer may not go so far as denouncing Romney, but she certainly went to lengths distinguishing her position from those "47% comments." It's just unfortunate that Fischer's actual record in the Legislature shows little more regard for Romney's 47% - even if she's never shown them quite so much outrageous disrespect. For that, Nebraskans should always be able to count on Attorney General Jon Bruning.
Of course, some of the states mentioned above are Democratic enough that GOP candidates had to distance themselves from Romney even before his idiotic and inflammatory remarks. At the same time, there are toss-ups where Republican candidates are right to fear that Romney's statement might be just enough to cost them the election by alienating voters down-ballot. But, I don't think it was clear just how bad things really are until the one 2012 candidate Republicans are proclaiming a near-lock to take a Democratic Senate seat still felt it necessary to distance herself from her party's nominee. That's Deb Fischer - right here in Nebraska.
No doubt, this whole incident has been an absolute disaster for Romney's presidential campaign. It's also a terrible sign for the Republican Party and a huge blow to their efforts to take control of both houses of Congress. Even in Nebraska, Fischer's approach suggests she's not so confident about winning in November as might have been supported by the early polling of her race with Bob Kerrey. Fischer might be on to something - she can't afford to embrace and defend Romney because this race is so very far from over.
Looking at our state's legislative map objectively, there are probably four top-tier races that should be on every Nebraska progressive's radar in the 2012 election. Three of these are open seats where we are well-positioned to replace a term-limited conservative State Senator with a hard-working moderate who can be trusted to lead with compassion and common sense - Kate Bolz in Lincoln's District 29, Rick Kolowski in Omaha's District 31, and Sue Crawford in the Bellevue-area's District 45.
The lone incumbent in this top tier would probably be State Senator Ken Haar in Lincoln/Lancaster County's District 21 - a crucial voice we can't afford to lose who's only in any jeopardy because his transplanted opponent's ties to powerful special interests and SuperPACS suggest this race could get ugly in a hurry.
However, voters of every political stripe appreciate that it's Senator Haar who's single-most responsible for Nebraskans having any say at all in the siting of the Keystone XL pipeline. For or against the pipeline - for or against any of its proposed routes - it was Haar who refused to let the silence, inaction and empty posturing of our other elected officials be the final word for the entire state. That courage may have earned Haar some powerful enemies who'd like nothing more than to see him defeated, but it's also won him the trust of voters. Haar will win precisely because voters won't be swayed by negative attacks having seen that he's a man of character who will do what's right for Nebraska's future.
Of course, outside this top tier there are plenty of other important legislative races that present real opportunities to elect more progressive candidates. I won't explore each of these at the moment but must at least mention my own campaign in Lincoln's District 27. Running against incumbent State Senator Colby Coash, the Kyle Michaelis campaign is giving voters a clear and exciting choice - leaving no doubt about who I am and what I'll stand for in the Legislature.
Just take a look at the campaign's new online video, which has been getting a really great response:
This is actually the first in a series. From here, the Michaelis for Legislature campaign will delve more deeply into the pressing issues that matter in this election and the key differences with my opponent. I'll probably post some of those videos here as they're released, but I'd otherwise encourage you to follow them at www.KyleMichaelis.com and the Michaelis for Legislature Facebook page. If you like seeing a candidate stand up for strong progresive values, you should also make a contribution and help ensure we have the resources to win!
Earlier this week, Bob Kerrey released a ten-point plan for reforming Social Security and restoring its long-term sustainability. The plan is published below. While you can certainly argue about the specifics, Kerrey deserves a lot of credit for putting forward a thoughtful proposal trusting Nebraska voters to understand that shared sacrifice is necessary to protect our greying American workforce while reassuring our nation's youngest workers that the system will be there for them as well.
Unfortunately, no one should have been surprised when Deb Fischer's campaign immediately went on the attack against Kerrey's plan as a "tax increase on the middle class" because it would gradually raise the cap on wages after which payroll taxes are no longer paid. Kerrey's offered a plan that extends the solvency of Social Security by over 50 years - years beyond the age at which a child born in 2012 can expect to retire - and, in response, Fischer's offered nothing but right-wing spin and an empty talking point.
But, this is nothing new from Deb Fischer. This is the foundation of her entire campaign for the U.S. Senate. The strategy served her well in the GOP primary, where straying from the party line was not expected and would have only raised suspicions. Close to three months later, she's running on the same vagaries and cheap rhetoric without the faintest hint of substance. Just take a look at this video that demonstrates just how vacuous Fischer has been addressing the most important issues in this election:
Deb Fischer says there needs to be "discussion" on all these issues. But, as we've seen on Social Security, Bob Kerrey has made an important contribution to this debate, offering voters a vision they can judge in November and leading where few others have dared. Rather than joining that discussion in a serious and respectable way, Fischer resorts to the same mindless political tactics that are the source of so much dysfunction in Washington D.C. Still, I'm yet to see her challenged that refusing to pursue reforms of the sort Kerrey's proposed almost inevitably means breaking America's 75 year commitment to the welfare and security of our young workers and future generations.
I can't say for sure that Deb Fischer is going to lose this election. But, she's proven that she should not be taken seriously as a candidate. I can confidently say that Deb Fischer will do absolutely nothing to help solve the problems we face in the 21st century. In fact, with her established record of pandering and evasion, she's more likely to make those problems worse.
For someone so interested in "discussion", it's more than a little ironic that Fischer has already passed up so many opportunities to debate Kerrey. It's clear that Fischer is running as nothing more than "the Republican" in this race. That's all she's got, and she's counting on it being enough so long as rightwing superPACs keep spending endless amounts attacking her opponent.
In some ways, Fischer's cynical approach might make her an ideal candidate for today's sound bite-driven, special interest-dominated political culture. However, I truly believe Nebraska voters are looking for something much different. We're looking for something and someone more real - a genuine leader with proven courage who's more interested in finding solutions to our country's problems than playing political games.
That's Bob Kerrey. This is who Bob Kerrey has always been - and why Nebraskans already knew there was something so special about him when we elected him as governor 30 years ago. He leads where others cannot and will not. He's leading while the Deb Fischer's of the world run empty and embarrasing campaigns that promise to contribute nothing but despair and dysfunction.
Nebraskans deserve better. We can prove that in November by sending Bob Kerrey to the U.S. Senate, so he can get back to work solving our nation's problems and leading on Nebraskans' behalf.
Hello, friends. I must apologize for the sorry state of NNN these last couple of months. In such an important election, with the fate of the nation hanging in the balance, Nebraska really does need as many strong progressive voices as possible blazing the trail forward.
Unfortunately, at this critical time, our work at NNN has come to a screeching halt. My circle of frequent contributors have all moved on to new opportunities - most recently Dennis Crawford (aka "Ronaldo") helping to reinvigorate the Nebraska Democratic Party blog from his position as the NDP's 2nd Associate Chair-elect. That wouldn't be such a big deal - NNN survived for a long time as a one-man operation - except my own personal circumstances haven't allowed me much time to read about Nebraska politics, let alone write about it.
It would be nice if I could say the summmer had been devoted to my campaign for the Legislature but that too has taken the backseat to family health issues that have left me with little time away from work that hasn't been spent on the road between Omaha hospitals and my hometown of West Point. I don't mean to suggest I've had no time that might have been devoted to NNN, but - honestly - everything else seems pretty damn irrelevant when the people you love are in crisis.
The problem is that I know the fights NNN has been fighting these last seven-and-a-half years aren't irrelevant. I've never given a damn for politics-for-politics sake, but the choices that are going to be made in this year's election are going to have serious consequences for people's lives and for our state's future. That's what this site has always been dedicated to, and it's work is not (quite) done.
Because New Nebraska Network still has something to contribute that people aren't getting anywhere else, it's my intent to keep the site going through the general election on November 6th. At that point, I will consider my own work on this site finished and look forward to embarking on a new stage in my life. If anyone shows an interest in taking up the mantle of NNN and carrying it forward, I'm certainly open to the posssibility but am otherwise content to let this site fade - that new and stronger voices might emerge.
98 days. 14 weeks. I'm refreshed and ready to go. Let's see how much fun we can have before this ride is over!
As many of you may already know, I was elected 2nd Associate Chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party over the weekend. The main promise of my campaign was that we Democrats need to do a better job of getting our message out. In order to keep that promise, I will be moving my posts to the Nebraska Democratic Party website at www.nebraskademocrats.org within the next few days. It appears as though my days of posting here at New Nebraska have come to an end (at least for now.)
Before I depart, I want to thank both Kyle for being an excellent host for my blogging and our loyal readers. I owe Kyle a lot because I made my posts here at New Nebraska the centerpiece of my campaign.
I hope that all of you will now begin reading my posts at the Nebraska Democratic Party website. I promise to continue to defend our values and shine a light of truth on today's radical Republican party.
My term at the NDP officially begins in December and will last two years. It is far too early to tell how long I will be an elected official of the NDP. In any event, once my tenure at the NDP ends, I promise you in the words of The Terminator: "I will be back."
As we've discussed here on numerous occasions in the past, Johanns, Fortenberry, Terry, and Smith have all voted for the Ryan plan on at least two occasions. This regressive plan would finance tax cuts for the wealthy by cutting Medicare and programs aimed at helping the poor. In addition, the Ryan plan would strip health insurance from millions of Americans and bring back pre-existing condition clauses.
A recent study by prepared by Senate Democrats and reviewed by nonpartisan tax experts indicates those aren't the only regressive features of the Ryan plan. This report indicates that the Ryan plan would would sharply cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans and could leave middle-class households facing much larger tax bills. This is because the plan reduces taxes (largely for the wealthy) by $4.5 trillion and Ryan has promised to make this plan revenue neutral by getting get rid of all the special-interest loopholes and tax shelters that litter the code. Ryan and the Republicans have yet to identify what tax deductions and loopholes they plan to close.
What Ryan and the radical Republicans haven't mentioned is that some of the biggest "loopholes" on the books are popular tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance, mortgage interest, state and local taxes, and retirement savings, which disproportionately benefit the upper middle class. What that means is that in order to make the Ryan plan revenue neutral, taxes would have to be increased on the middle class. According to this new analysis of the Ryan plan, middle class married couples would pay an additional $2,700 annually in federal taxes. At the same time, families earning more than $1 million a year, meanwhile, could see a net tax cut of about $300,000 annually.
After receiving the results of this new study, the Republicans cried foul calling the report "premature and unfair." A Republican Aide to the House Ways and Means Committee said it wasn't fair that this study assumed that the GOP would roll back popular middle class tax breaks. Nevertheless, the GOP still hasn't told us how they would make the Ryan plan revenue neutral.
What this means than is that Nebraska Republicans either voted to raise taxes on the middle class or to explode the deficit. Johanns, Fortenberry, Terry and Smith owe the voters an explanation. Just what did you vote for? Do you even know?
These votes in favor the Ryan plan by the Nebraska Republicans also call into question their judgement. On the two occasions they voted for this plan they apparently didn't know whether it would raise taxes on the middle class or significantly increase the deficit. (Or they didn't tell us.) The Nebraska Republicans basically bought a pig in a poke.
The only way to bring clarity to this situation is for Nebraska voters to elect our slate of Democratic candidates for the Congress. Bob Kerrey, Korey Reiman, John Ewing and Mark Sullivan all oppose the Ryan plan. (We should also thank Senator Ben Nelson for his steadfast opposition to this regressive budget plan.) They would stand firm against any efforts to finance tax cuts for the wealthy by shifting the costs to the poor and the middle class. They deserve to be elected because they reflect the Main Street values of Nebraska rather than the Wall St. values that Nebraska Republicans support.
That's right, the Minimum Wage. Congressman Terry and Senator Johanns don't believe home care workers are entitled to earn at least $7.25 an hour. That's a paltry $15,000 per year for a full time worker. And it's not just the minimum wage. Johanns and Terry don't believe home care workers deserve to be paid time-and-a-half for overtime, either. You see, the Fair Labor Standards Act(FLSA) mandates that employers pay at least the current Minimum Wage and pays time-and-a half for hours worked over forty. But the FLSA exempts home care workers. These are people who provide care and companionship for the elderly and infirm. Their duties may include: Domestic chores(cooking, cleaning, etc.), assisting with personal hygiene(changing bedpans, diapers, bathing) and chauffeuring.
Now, the Obama Administration is proposing tightening the exemption to include only full-time companions, and first-party hires. Predictably, Congressman Terry, and Senator Johanns oppose this, preferring to side with the home care industry over actual home care providers. Both have cosponsored legislation which keeps the current exemption in place.
I have to hand it to Senator Johanns. At least in his press release he was brave enough to come right out and say that he was opposing Minimum Wage and overtime protections for home care workers. Congressman Terry, in his press release, was only willing to refer to it as "the companionship exemption" without saying what was exempt. Perhaps it has something to do with Americans' overwhelming support for the Minimum Wage.
Congressman Terry concludes his press release by saying,
"Instead of regulating, we should continue to promote the health and cost benefits associated with in-home companionship. These companions have been a blessing to seniors, the disabled and home-bound."
I urge you to contact Congressman Terry and Senator Johanns and tell them that those home care companions who have been such a blessing to our seniors deserve to earn a fair wage.
One of the most surprising developments in recent Nebraska political history was Deb Fischer's upset victory over Jon Bruning in the 2012 GOP Senate primary. As we've discussed here previously, Fischer's victory was made largely possible by approximately $2.3 million in negative ads directed at Bruning by Super PACs.
Perhaps the coup de grace for Bruning was the $300,000.00 in advertising from Ameritrade billionaire Joe Ricketts in the closing days of the campaign. Ricketts' devastating ad on Bruning's swift accumulation of vast wealth while living on a government salary was probably the turning point of the campaign.
Sources close to Bruning have speculated on the Ricketts' motivation for taking out the Attorney General. They have said that if Ricketts had contributed to Bruning, he would have just been one of numerous wealthy donors who had contributed to Bruning. However, Ricketts made this last minute play because he wanted to be the ONLY super wealthy donor who had given to Fischer and thus made her nomination possible. Apparently, Mr. Ricketts wants to buy himself a U.S. Senator. As Bob Kerrey pointed out: "When he calls on her, what's he going to get?"
Just how did one billionaire essentially decide the outcome of the 2012 Nebraska Senate primary? It all became possible due to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the 2010 Citizens United decision. In this case, the five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court equated money with speech and legislated from the bench by creating an entirely new campaign finance system for campaigns in the U.S. This decision lifted all spending restrictions for the corporations and wealthy and allowed them to make donations to Super PACs in complete secrecy. The Citizens United decision (a/k/a legislation) has created a two tier campaign funding system: one with small donors and strict regulation, and second which exists for the very wealthy, who have been freed from regulation.
The impact on campaigns in the U.S. has been dramatic. Super PACs aligned with Mitt Romney essentially won the GOP nomination for him by running a series of negative ads that took out Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. Those same Super PACs will now attempt to take out President Obama. It has been reported that the Super PACs plant to raise $1 billion on behalf of Romney and the GOP could end up out spending Obama and the Democrats by a 2-1 margin in the general election.
Thanks to the five activist Republican members of the U.S. Supreme Court, we now have political system that is no longer, one person, one vote. Instead, it is now one dollar, one vote. It is the moral equivalent of a national town hall meeting where a handful of billionaires and corporate CEOs are in the front row with bullhorns while the rest of us are about 50 rows back without even a microphone.
Just what impact has Citizens United had on the Nebraska Senate race between Kerrey and Fischer? It has caused Deb Fischer to run a cowardly and cynical campaign where she avoids debates, specific issue stands and engagement with the voters and the press. Fischer went so far as to duck a debate with Kerrey in front of the GOP aligned Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce and the Lincoln Chamber of Commerce on August 16. Kerrey correctly said: "Business leaders should not be given the cold shoulder. State Senator Fischer said during the Republican primary that we need to move away from sound bites and debate the issues. I hope she has not changed her mind." The Fischer campaign responded by citing it's usual focus group tested and vague talking points about cutting taxes and supporting a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.
The Supreme Court's legislation in United Citizens has the potential to ruin the Senate general election campaign here in Nebraska. We might very well have the spectacle of the GOP Senate nominee basically going into hiding and hoping that the Super PACs will destroy Kerrey in the general election. As Democrats and Progressives, we can counter Fischer's cynical plan by working hard for Kerrey's campaign and contributing to it. The only way to pull Fischer out of her protective shell is to help Kerrey and make this a tight race this fall. In my opinion, the future of our state and nation depends upon it. The future of democracy has been imperiled by the five Republicans on the Supreme Court and we need to work hard to preserve it.
Thanks to the landmark 2010 health care reform law, approxmately, 6.6 million young adults signed up for health coverage through their parents' insurance plans in the first year after a new provision in the federal health law took effect, according to estimates in a study released late last week. As part of the law, most insurance plans offered by employers to their workers had to allow parents to enroll dependents on their plans up to the age of 26, starting in September 2010. Previously, parents had been able to include children only up to their 19th birthdays, or until the age of 22 if the children were full-time college students.
According to a new Gallup survey, the uninsured rate for people age 18-25 continues to decline, down to 23 percent from 28 percent when the law took effect. This provision of Obama Care is so helpful that even Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) used his taxpayer financed health insurance coverage with the U.S. Senate to insure his 23 year old daughter.
Yet Scott Brown and the Nebraska Republicans support the complete repeal of Obama Care. Mike Johanns, Jeff Fortenberry, Adrian Smith and Lee Terry have all voted to repeal Obama Care. In addition, Deb Fischer is on record in favor of the repeal of the 2010 health care reform law. It should also be noted here that these Republicans have yet to come up with the coherent and comprehensive "replace" bill that they promised three years ago.
Just what would be the consequences of the repeal of Obama Care? For starters, 6.6 million young people would lose their health insurance coverage. (This probably wouldn't be a hardship for Brown since he is a very wealthy man who would be in a position to purchase alternative coverage for his daughter.)
Another consequence of the repeal of this popular provision would be that this would cause parents' taxes to go up. Economist Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute says many parents would pay higher taxes as a result because they would have to pay for the young adult's coverage with after-tax dollars. Under the health care law, that coverage now comes out of pre-tax dollars. Fronstin says there's no way to tell exactly how much that tax increase might be, but a couple of hundred dollars a year or more is a reasonable ballpark estimate. Upper-income taxpayers would have a greater liability.
I would also like to mention that if Obama Care is repealed, seniors with high prescription costs in Medicare's "donut hole" coverage gap could lose annual discounts averaging about $600. Moreover, a repeal of Obama Care would suspend benefits for preventive care with no co-payments, now available to retirees and working families alike.
Once again, I would like to thank Senator Ben Nelson for voting for the health care reform law in 2010. Senator Nelson paid a big political price for that vote but it was the right decision. Moreover, I would like to praise Senator Nelson because he continues to defend that vote and Obama Care in general.
This is the kind of message that we Democrats need to get out about Obama Care. This landmark law is already working and doing a lot of good. In my opinion, once the American people learn more about this law, support for it will increase. That's why the Republicans are so desperate to repeal before it takes effect in 2014.
If I am elected Second Associate Chair of the NDP, I will publicize this kind of good news far and wide. If more people learn about our successes, we will win more elections.
