Lindstrom Just Another "Me Too" Want-to-be

The Republican opponent du jour for Lee Terry's Second Congressional U.S. Congress seat, Brett Lindstrom, was interviewed by Lincoln Journal Star's Don Walton in an article that appeared yesterday (http://journalstar.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/article_89f9eba4-d9aa-5944-a662-862669cea8d8.html).  For the most part it sounded like, "Me too!" to us.  

Of course, the article concluded with a comment by Lindstrom, ""I wouldn't do this if I didn't think I could win."  Frankly, we think that Lindstrom, like now nearly forgotten Matt Sakalosky (Lee's Republican opponent in 2010) whose shooting star has all but disappeared from the political landscape, ought to 'think' again.....

P.S.   Maybe someone should tell Brett that Lincoln isn't in the Second Congressional District.

Marco Rubio: Why We Like Him

No secret we like Marco Rubio so we thought we'd share his weekly mailbox video with you which gives a little incite on how he thinks.   It's particularly relevant since it deals with the debt ceiling increase but more than that his belief on spending.  

COMPROMISE? NO!

 We are simply tired of hearing the media and the hypocrites talk about how compromise is needed to solve the debt crisis.    The House of Representatives holds the keys to solving the debt crisis issue just as two years ago Ben Nelson and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi held the keys to health care reform and gave us OBAMACARE--WITHOUT ANY COMPROMISE--WITHOUT ANY REPUBLICAN VOTES-WITHOUT EVEN READING OR HAVING TIME TO READ THE BILL WHICH HYPOCRITES LIKE BEN NELSON NOW WHAT TO FIX.

COMPROMISE???  HELL NO!

No Excuses for Obama's Failed Leadership

Americans for Prosperity has a new ad out that pretty well tells exactly what the current occupant of the White House is looking for--an opportunity to put as much of his misguided economic failures away for as long as possible.   That would be after the 2012 elections.    What amazes is that the press lets the world know that the Republicans are holding up the debt ceiling by their selfish motives and never questions those of this so-called leader of our country....

Suttle Budget Meeting: How Great Thou Art!

Our correspondents were at the Mayor Suttle's budget meeting at Westside High School last night.  Their overall consensus was that  two musical pieces might  best describe the overall presentation: Billy Graham's theme hymn "How Great Thou Art" combined with the pop classic "Everything Is Beautiful, In It's Own Way"!  In other words, this may be the most outstanding city administration in the history of Omaha!

There were roughly 45-50 in the audience, plus 15-20 members of the Mayor's staff. Council members Stothert and Franklin attended as did KFAB's Tom Becka who earlier on his radio show complained about the low attendance at such events.  However, given the format and previous years of listening to the same lack of responsiveness of Suttle and his staff to citizen suggestions we understand why folks might want to stay home and watch the grass grow.

      

Performance Based Budgeting was the catch phrase of the evening, and was being heralded as the magic formula to bring about a management Utopia, presided over by Engineer in Chief Jim Suttle.

The $67 million increase in budget was attributed to infrastructure expenses (sewer, etc.), along with health care & employee wage increases. Otherwise, most dept. heads, save one (Public Works) heralded their diminished staffing over last year.

A member of Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom asked the mayor about the police chief's proposed salary increase and Suttle babbled on and on about lack of increases in recent years, reduction in crime rate (?), need to stay "competitive", etc., etc.

Tom Becka asked the Fire Chief to explain the dept.'s "savings" over the past year, but quite frankly we found the Chief's responses vague and less than comprehensible.

One of the more interesting comments came at the end from Finance Director Pam Spacarotella on the Administration's approach to budgeting.    In essence, she said that they initially looked at the need to maintain city services, and then determined what that would cost, and adjust revenue from there (i.e. where do we obtain the funds?) rather than start from a baseline and adjust costs/services according to that.

So, not a lot of incisive information. But, in all honesty, an impressive propaganda event! And we did get to see the red Durango!!!!

Stenberg Gets Levin Endorsement

We are not sure what value it has, but Don Stenberg got radio talk show Mark Levin's endorsement for the Republican nomination in Nebraska's upcoming U.S. Senate primary.  Levin opined of Stenberg that, "He is the conservative that is running."   Levin also opined that Stenberg is, "a solid conservative who really does have a chance of winning."

In the interview, Stenberg said that, "We lead Nelson in polling by 44% to 40%."   Of course, Don didn't mention that the same polling shows fellow candidate Bruning leading Nelson by a greater margin and leading Stenberg on a head-to-head basis for the G.O.P. nomination.   In answer to a question from Levin, Stenberg said that he is a strong supporter of the tea party movement and that he considers himself a conservative in the mold of Senators Lee, Rubio and DeMint (has he got DeMint's endorsement yet?).

Yes Don is a conservative, but with a paltry $51,000 raised in the last quarter against Bruning's $300,000+  we're afraid that Don isn't selling very well.  

None the less, he now has an additional endorsement to add to campaign and, of course, he got the chance to ask a national audience to send him money for his campaign.   Guess we'll see what that is worth come the next filing report.
You can find the Utube video/audio at: http://youtu.be/fhpU6-800Yg

Governor Minces No Words: Hell No and Kick Butt!

Our correspondents were at the Douglas County Republican Party/Nebraska Republican Party launch of their new website last night.   The event, for county and state boosters, was attended by other elected officials including Clerk of the District Clerk John Friend, City Council members Franklin Thompson and Jean Stothert, State Treasurer Don Stenberg, State Senator Scott Price, Public Service Commissioner Tim Schram, M.U.D Board Member Steve Patterson and many local and state Republican officials including National Committeeman Pete Ricketts.   

After introductions and discussion of the new website Douglas County Republican Chairman Scott Petersen introduced Governor Dave Heineman who spoke on a number of issues and than took numerous questions.   Here is what the governor had to say:

• Nebraska has rightly moved up as a great state to do business in.   It is clearly in the top ten nationally.
• He noted his and the legislature's efforts to deliver the largest tax reduction program in Nebraska's history while holding the line on spending.
• He told folks that jobs and a quality education are priorities and took a swing at those promoting class warfare, saying, "Tax the Rich means take the middle class-you and I."
• "The president ought to lead like we do in Nebraska."
• He is supporting Mitt Romney but that all in the audience should get behind a presidential candidate and when the primaries are done get behind the winner.
• In regard to comments made on recruiting candidates, he said, "I don't need any more Steve Lathrops."
• On the 'winner-takes-all' electoral vote issue he said, "We are not going to let this president win this electoral vote (Second Congressional District).
• On the purchase of culturally proficient books by the Omaha School Board he said, "Hell, no, we don't need school board members like that."
• He said that while Mayor Suttle has worked hard to control the flooding issue,, that a 25% raise for the police chief is wrong.
• On the Suttle request for an additional half-cent sales tax authority, he reiterated that there was no way it could be done under the Mayor's terms.   Heineman noted that he would consider if residents of Omaha were allowed to vote on a property tax reduction at the same time but that wasn't what Suttle wants.   On city taxes increases the mayor said, "Hogwash! Baloney! The city needs to cut just like the state has done."
• On Big Red's prospects, he said he looks forward to Nebraska winning the Big 10 and kicking Texas or Oklahoma's butt in the national championship game.
• In regard to Ben Nelson he said, "We will give Ben the boot for his vote for Obamacare, for his Cornhusker Kickback which is a disaster for America."
• On competitive primaries he said that they make our candidates stronger.     

It was an evening that turned out to be one of candid questions and answers.   Nebraskans should be proud of their governor and his efforts and accomplishments.

Corporate Income Taxes in Nebraska

Platte Chat, a regular communication from the Platte Institute  has an interesting article by Jordan Cash, "The Corporate Income Tax: Dulling Nebraska's Competitive Edge" in its latest iteration.   Among other things it tells us:

• Nebraska has two corporate income tax rates. The lower rate of 5.58 percent applies to businesses that net under $50,000 a year, while the higher 7.81 percent rate applies to businesses netting more than $50,000. Nebraska's corporate tax applies only to money earned in Nebraska, so if it is a multi-state operation, taxes will only be paid on profits made in Nebraska.
• While 7.81 percent is not extraordinarily high, it does put Nebraska at a regional disadvantage. Among neighboring states, only Iowa has a higher corporate income tax rate. Kansas and Missouri have are at 7 and 6.25 percent, respectively, similar to Nebraska but still lower. Colorado's single flat rate is one of the lowest in the country at 4.63 percent, and South Dakota and Wyoming have no corporate income tax at all, a unique feature shared only with Nevada.
• This regional competitiveness issue is underscored by the fact that the Tax Foundation lists Nebraska as 29^th for business climate. This is in contrast to two neighboring states that rank in the top ten best business climates: South Dakota at number one, Wyoming at number three. Colorado is respectable at 15th.
• While Nebraska has a higher ranking than Iowa or Kansas, to be regionally competitive with neighboring states, a corporate income tax reduction would be a sensible first step. One possible option would be to institute a flat tax-rate of the lower 5.58 percent rate, increasing Nebraska competitiveness.
• The costs of a corporate income tax will simply be passed on to those who associate with the business, whether it be stockholders with lower returns, workers with lower wages, or consumers with higher prices.
• Since 1980, the corporate income tax has been steadily decreasing as a percentage of state tax receipts. Between 1980 and 2001 the corporate income tax as a percentage of state revenue was almost cut in half, from 7 percent to 3.8 percent.
• For as little money as it brings in, and for as much as it contributes to keeping Nebraska from being a business friendly haven, the corporate income tax rate should be revisited.

We'd go a little farther ourselves and simply assert that the corporate income taxes makes no sense simply because  as Platte Chat notes, businesses don't pay taxes, people do.  The taxes businesses pay are simply passed on to its clients in the form of higher taxes.

You can see the full Platte Chat at:    http://www.platteinstitute.org/

---

Pay Me Now or Pay Me Later

The following piece came to us today from Chris Chocola, President of the Club for Growth.   The 'Club' isn't exactly a wimpy liberal organization and we think that Chocola has it exactly right in what he says we need to do about the national debt ceiling extension.  It appeared in today's Politico under the title, "Why we need 'Cut, Cap, and Balance.'

"In their famous 1981 commercial, Fram sold their ubiquitous oil filter with a simple, but true catch phrase. The ad featured two auto mechanics who advised drivers to buy the Fram oil filter from them - or face the massive cost of an engine rebuild somewhere down the line. "The choice is yours," said one attendant. "You can pay me now, or pay me later."

Paying later is always more expensive and more painful.

The same is true of America's economy. We've stretched our economic engine to the breaking point by piling on mountains of new government spending and debt. During the debate over the nation's debt ceiling, most ratings agencies have noted that they may downgrade our country's AAA bond rating - not necessarily if the debt ceiling isn't raised, but because the debt itself is too large and our ability to pay is too small.

In short, the ratings agencies want what we want: responsible behavior, which includes spending cuts now, enforceable spending caps, and a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. We've called it "Cut, Cap, and Balance." It's the only plan offered that solves America's fiscal mess.

That's why groups like the Club for Growth and others oppose the Boehner debt reduction plan, the Reid debt reduction plan, the McConnell debt reduction plan (has there been an Obama debt reduction plan?), and any other plan that does not include those basic tenets. Even newspapers like the Wall Street Journal that support the Boehner plan point out that "It's true that the Boehner plan doesn't solve the long-term debt problem."
So if we pass the Boehner plan, are we really in a better place than today? We haven't solved our debt crisis and it becomes even harder to solve in the future and it is likely that America's bond rating will still be downgraded. Why should members of Congress support something that doesn't tackle the debt problem and only makes it more expensive to solve in the future? The answer is that they shouldn't: They should demand Cut, Cap, and Balance.

The debt is our problem, not the debt limit. The consequences of not aggressively attacking it now are severe. Devalued Treasuries. Skyrocketing interest rates on small business loans. Homeownership becomes impossibility for the middle class. If we do not come up with a serious plan to tackle our debt problem in the long term, we risk catastrophic consequences for America's future.

Thus, we are at the Fram Oil filter moment. Either we can do Cut, Cap, and Balance now, or we can do it later - at which time it will be much more painful and expensive.

We know the debt ceiling has to be raised, but actually solving the long term debt problem should be the only basis of any legislation that does so."

Chris Chocola, a former congressman from Indiana, is the President of the Club for Growth

This is Not Leadership -- Doug Patton

As the United States of America continues to drift, many Americans still seem perplexed that after two-and-a-half years, Barack Obama is a walking contradiction. He cannot seem to lead; he can only follow and dictate. He has no policies, only vague concepts and Marxist ideology. He starts wars and calls them something else. He simultaneously makes Congress responsible and yet irrelevant. He refuses to be held accountable for anything. It’s all still Bush’s fault, you know.

One of Obama’s last official acts as a United States Senator, before winning the 2008 presidential race, was to vote, along with his opponent, Sen. John McCain, for more than $700 billion in bailout money for the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP), a slush fund for big banks and insurance companies.

He came into office dictating that Congress pass a bill authorizing another slush fund of nearly $900 billion. He called this one a “stimulus package.” He gave vague lip service to “shovel-ready jobs,” which he has since admitted were not as shovel-ready as he had led the American people to believe. But he really didn’t specify the items for which this massive pile of borrowed cash would be used. He simply demanded that Congress authorize it and have it ready for his signature as soon as possible after he took the oath of office. He used part of it to prop up two bankrupt car companies so they would not have to lay off union workers (the only workers he seems to care about). Much of it has gone to infuse faltering state governments with ready cash, which is to say that it went to save the jobs of public sector union members.

He shook down BP, demanding cash from the oil giant to create yet another slush fund as the price for the sin of polluting the Gulf of Mexico. Does anyone have any idea where that $20 billion went? Certainly not to the hard-hit businesses along the Gulf Coast who were supposed to get it.

He demanded a massive health care bureaucracy, but he provided no specifics at all as to what he wanted it to do, who he wanted it to cover or how he wanted to finance it. He left those decisions up to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and his other toadies in Congress. They created a bloated, unworkable monstrosity that now bears his name: Obamacare.

He and his party cannot pass a budget. He has spent more borrowed money than all of his predecessors combined, yet he is trying to convince the American people that he is a deficit cutter. Then he demands that the national debt ceiling be raised and warns of economic calamity if he doesn’t get his way. His actions are reminiscent of the story of the son who murders his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan!

House Speaker John Boehner has said that dealing with this president is like negotiating with a bowl of Jell-O. That is because he has no intention of cutting spending. Barack Obama’s inclination is to raise taxes and spend more money, period. Ronald Reagan once compared the federal government to a newborn baby: an insatiable appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other. That, in a nutshell, is Barack Obama.

If this is leadership, we desperately need to redefine the term. Barack Obama is a dictator, not a leader. He demands. He demagogues. He sputters. He dictates. And then he follows those he has bullied. But then what did any of us expect from a community organizer who was still voting “present” in the state legislature just four short years before he was handed the most powerful position in the world?

______________________________________________________________________________

© 2011 by Doug Patton

______________________________________________________________________________

Doug Patton describes himself as a recovering political speechwriter who agrees with himself much more often than not. Now working as a freelance writer, his weekly columns of sage political analysis are published the world over by legions of discerning bloggers, courageous webmasters and open-minded newspaper editors. Astute supporters and inane detractors alike are encouraged to e-mail him with their pithy comments at dougpatton@cox.net.

Atlanta Education Scandal and National Education Association Spell Future of American Education (NOT!)

We don't often mention Phyllis Schlafly, but she has a great column today, 'Scandals in the Classroom', which is worth the read. In her discussion of the Atlanta, Georgia education scandal, she takes note of the report released by Georgia Governor Nathan Deal, noting:

• "......how hundreds of Atlanta public school teachers and principals had been cheating during the past 10 years on standardized tests in order to falsely report that their schools were doing a good job and the kids were improving."
• that, "A total of 178 teachers and principals (38 were principals), 82 of whom have already confessed, had fraudulently raised test scores so their schools would meet test targets set by the district and thereby qualify for federal funds."
• that, "The investigation showed that principals and teachers in 56 schools had been cheating since 2001 by various methods, such as erasing wrong answers on tests and inserting correct answers."
• that, "The high scores of Atlanta schoolchildren had enabled Superintendent Beverly L. Hall to collect $600,000 in performance bonuses over 10 years to supplement her $400,000 annual salary. Two national organizations honored her with the title of "superintendent of the year."

You have surely read about this. We hope that each and every one of these folks are prosecuted under federal fraud statutes.

Having noted the scandal in Georgia, Schlafly went on to talk about the recent N.E.A. Convention and some of their actions and resolutions. She noted, "The representatives of the 3.2 million NEA members were too busy passing their usual long list of anti-parent, pro-homosexual, pro-feminist and left-wing resolutions."

Among other things that will surely get your bile flowing were:

• "The NEA adopted Standing Rule Amendment 1 to order all future NEA materials to replace references to K-12 with Pre-K-12. That's a clear message that the NEA sees its future in lining up more union members by expanding the role of public schools to get 3- and 4-year-old children."
• "It must have been difficult for the Resolutions Committee to add any new pro-homosexual resolutions to the 20 passed last year, but it did. The NEA voted to "publish Articles to celebrate the contributions of GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender) teachers and GLBT friends of education."
• "Feminist resolutions passed by the NEA include endorsement of the Equal Rights Amendment, abortion, family planning clinics in public schools, hiring on the basis of "comparable worth" instead of "market value" and the use of so-called non-sexist language."
• "The NEA adopted Resolution B-16 to urge Hispanics to be involved in "lobbying efforts for federal programs." Among those political goals, of course, is support of "passage of the Dream Act that provides a pathway for undocumented college students to obtain a Green Card and eventual citizenship," endorsed in New Business Item 11."
• "Among the other political resolutions adopted by the NEA Convention were endorsements of single-payer (government) health care, reparations for descendants of slaves, statehood for the District of Columbia, compliance with unratified United Nations treaties, opposition to English as our official language, opposition to a moment of silence in schools and strict regulation of guns. NEA Resolution H-1 urges members "to become politically involved" in the NEA's political action committees, and we all know that means electing Democratic candidates.
• "....The NEA supports public school courses in multiculturalism, global education, environmental education, bilingual education, AIDS education and self-esteem, but opposes voucher plans, tuition tax credits, parental-option plans and homeschooling."
• "The most exciting event during the NEA Convention was the presentation of the Friend of Education Award to the "Wisconsin 14," the state legislators who fled their state rather than vote for legislation that would slightly modify collective bargaining rights for state employees."
• "Going on record as the first union to endorse Barack Obama for a second term, NEA delegates voted overwhelmingly to support him in the 2012 presidential election, a year earlier than the NEA usually makes its endorsements."

And to think that we in Nebraska and Omaha wonder why we have school board members (who are no more than pawns of an administration that supports this mentality) who support wasteful 'culturally proficient' expenditures of taxpayer dollars. If this is the future of public education, private schools and home schooling are the future for parents who are concerned about the education of their children!

You can find her complete column at: http://townhall.com/columnists/phyllisschlafly/2011/07/26/scandals_in_the_classroom

Passing The Smell Test?

There is an article in Roll Call today, "House Spouses Make Good Money From Campaigns" by Alex Knott.   It details how many of our congressmen, both Republican and Democrat have spouses on their payrolls or provide them or related firms or foundations money for services either from there federal or campaign budgets.     While on the surface the examples mentioned don't appear to be illegal one would logically be inclined to ask whether those payments meet the smell test of being appropriate.   Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't.   Certainly if they smell too much they would become fodder for potential opponents. 

You can read more at: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_13/house-spouses-make-good-money-from-campaigns-207654-1.html?ET=rollcall:e10648:80105784a:&st=email&pos=epol

 

• By Alex Knott
• Roll Call Staff

What Next For Senator Cornett?

Our correspondents were at the annual Sarpy County Republican Party Picnic yesterday.   It was attended by about 30-40 folks.    Elected officials attending were State Senators Scott Price and Abbie Cornett.   Lee Terry had his folks there and we took note of his declared opponent Brett Lindstrom who did a poor job of introducing himself to those present.
What was obvious though was that State Senator Abbie Cornett who is term limited must have her eye on another office as she was there in campaign mode with her husband taking lots of photos for some future campaign purpose. 

Chuck Hagel: Still Trying to Be Relevant

We thought perhaps it was an early morning nightmare when our sleepy eyes beheld the blurring image of former failed Nebraska U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel yesterday morning on Meet the Press.     Sadly, it was reality, not a nightmare.   

Yes, there he was on the Meet the Press round table trying to be relevant.   Hagel looked haggard and his tie would have woken us if we'd only had the television on mute--which wouldn't have done much to diminish Hagel's mostly vacuous comments.  

Somehow this poor excuse for a former U.S. Senator couldn't find  a way to stick up for conservatives on the debt crisis, the end of U.S. and world finances as we know them come Tuesday of next week.  

He did tell us that there was a new emerging center of gravity in politics, the world order being rebuilt.  

He said that there was a vacuum of leadership in Washington, a lack of courage.  He recalled one of his few remembered comments as a senator wherein he mentioned that those who serve in congress should either lead or go home and sell shoes.   We wonder how many pair he has sold since his departure from the Senate in fear of being defeated had he run for re-election.

 Hagel said that democracy can only work through consensus and told those willing to listen that America, "is trapped in a 20th Century government structure trying to deal with 21st century issues.  He went on to say, "You come to Washington to compromise."  This after talking about making decisions and leading rather than selling shoes....

If you are able to perceive anything from all of this you must be a Hagel fan.   Frankly, his comments were inane and irrelevant--but at least he was once again in front of a Sunday morning national audience.  

The Debt Ceiling 'Skirmish'

We couldn't help but be impressed with a column by Arthur C. Brooks, President of the American Enterprise Institute which is appearing in the Wall Street Journal.   The column, The Debt Ceiling and the Pursuit of Happiness, probably won't appear in the local daily but it sure spells out the reality of the current fight and what is at stake.   With that said we suggest the following is mandatory reading for our conservative and liberal friends:

"The battle over the debt ceiling is only the latest skirmish in what promises to be an ongoing, exhausting war over budget issues. Americans can be forgiven for seeing the whole business as petty, selfish and tiresome. Conservatives in particular are beginning to worry that public patience will wear thin over their insistence that our nation's government-spending problem must be remedied through spending cuts, not by raising more revenues.

But before they succumb to too much caution, budget reformers need to remember three things. First, this is not a political fight between Republicans and Democrats; it is a fight against 50-year trends toward statism. Second, it is a moral fight, not an economic one. Third, this is not a fight that anyone can win in the 15 months from now to the presidential election. It will take hard work for at least a decade.

Consider a few facts. The Bureau of Economic Analysis tells us that total government spending at all levels has risen to 37% of gross domestic product today from 27% in 1960—and is set to reach 50% by 2038.

The Tax Foundation reports that between 1986 and 2008, the share of federal income taxes paid by the top 5% of earners has risen to 59% from 43%. Between 1986 and 2009, the percentage of Americans who pay zero or negative federal income taxes has increased to 51% from 18.5%. And all this is accompanied by an increase in our national debt to 100% of GDP today from 42% in 1980.

Where will it all lead? Some despairing souls have concluded there are really only two scenarios. In one, we finally hit a tipping point where so few people actually pay for their share of the growing government that a majority become completely invested in the social welfare state, which stabilizes at some very high level of taxation and government social spending. (Think Sweden.)

In the other scenario, our welfare state slowly collapses under its weight, and we get some kind of permanent austerity after the rest of the world finally comprehends the depth of our national spending disorder and stops lending us money at low interest rates. (Think Greece.)

In other words: Heads, the statists win; tails, we all lose.

Anyone who seeks to provide serious national political leadership today—those elected in 2010 or who seek national office in 2012—owe Americans a plan to escape having to make this choice. We need tectonic changes, not minor fiddling.

Rep. Paul Ryan's (R., Wis.) budget plan is the kind of model necessary. But structural change will only succeed if it's accompanied by a moral argument—an unabashed cultural defense of the free enterprise system that helps Americans remember why they love their country and its exceptional culture.

America's Founders knew the importance of moral language, which is why they asserted our unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, not to the possession of property. Similarly, Adam Smith, the father of free-market economics, had a philosophy that transcended the mere wealth of nations. His greatest book was "The Theory of Moral Sentiments," a defense of a culture that could support true freedom and provide the greatest life satisfaction.

Yet today, it is progressives, not free marketeers, who use the language of morality. President Obama was not elected because of his plans about the taxation of repatriated profits, or even his ambition to reform health care. He was elected largely on the basis of language about hope and change, and a "fairer" America.

The irony is that statists have a more materialistic philosophy than free-enterprise advocates. Progressive solutions to cultural problems always involve the tools of income redistribution, and call it "social justice."

Free-enterprise advocates, on the other hand, speak privately about freedom and opportunity for everybody—including the poor. Most support a limited safety net, but also believe that succeeding on our merits, doing something meaningful, and having responsibility for our own affairs are what give us the best life. Sadly, in public, they always seem stuck in the language of economic efficiency.

The result is that year after year we slip further down the redistributionist road, dissatisfied with the growing welfare state, but with no morally satisfying arguments to make a change that entails any personal sacrifice.

Examples are all around us. It is hard to find anyone who likes our nation's current health-care policies. But do you seriously expect grandma to sit idly by and let Republicans experiment with her Medicare coverage so her great-grandchildren can get better treatment for carried interest? Not a chance.

If reformers want Americans to embrace real change, every policy proposal must be framed in terms of self-realization, meritocratic fairness and the promise of a better future. Why do we want to lower taxes for entrepreneurs? Because we believe in earned success. Why do we care about economic growth? To make individual opportunity possible, not simply to increase wealth. Why do we need entitlement reform? Because it is wrong to steal from our children.

History shows that big moral struggles can be won, but only when they are seen as decade-long fights and not just as a way to prevail in the next election. Welfare reform was first proposed in 1984 and regarded popularly as a nonstarter. Twelve years of hard work by scholars at my own institution and others helped make it a mainstream idea (signed into law by a Democratic president) and perhaps the best policy for helping the poor to escape poverty in our nation's history. Political consultants would have abandoned welfare reform as unworkably audacious and politically suicidal. Real leaders understood that its moral importance transcended short-term politics.

No one deserves our political support today unless he or she is willing to work for as long as it takes to win the moral fight to steer our nation back toward enterprise and self-governance. This fight will not be easy or politically safe. But it will be a happy one: to share the values that make us proud to be Americans."

Mr. Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of "The Battle: How the Fight Between Free Enterprise and Big Government Will Shape America's Future" (Basic Books, 2010).

Open Letter To Ben Nellson: Do What's Right for America -- Ted Quick

Mr. Nelson,

While the media (whose childish spin is laughable) are telling us that the last three year’s newly-instituted socialist/Marxist programs are working for America, a look at the jobs and unemployment numbers quickly reveals the truth. Since there is sufficient brain power in Washington to recognize that truth, it’s clear that our direction is intentional and that their goal to destroy America, as we know it, is purposeful. That intent is also becoming increasingly more apparent to others. The remaining believers are those of lesser intellect, those on the take and those trapped in their ideological abysses. But then, that is part of Washington’s plan.

Most in America understand that business and industry employ 100% of the producers, make 100% of the profits and pay 100% of the taxes. (You takers may claim that you pay taxes, but you wouldn’t have your jobs or incomes if first we weren’t producing). So without us, Washington, you would be nothing; vapid and lifeless. In fact, worse than that, because like a baby, you had to first be created and like a baby, you are totally dependent upon us. And to thank us for having made America the greatest country that ever existed or that will ever exist, you misuse our money, increase the size and scope of your reach and redistribute vast amounts of our money to others, most of whom are undeserving. And even though you are genetically incapable of generating income, in tantrum-like tirades you demand even greater amounts of ours.

Well, Mr. Nelson, you are one of those takers and part of our destruction, you and your 60^th vote. As a former supporter, I know that you know how incompetently government-owned and managed ventures are run, but you have a chance now to do what is right.

 

 

I’ll remind you of what your president said as a Senator in March 2006, “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” 87% of Americans agreed with that statement as recent as April of this year (Freedomworks). Here is your chance to finally provide positive leadership; you can vote “NO” on raising the debt ceiling and “NO” on any increase in taxes; you can create another “Gang of (insert number)” to downsize government and you can admit that ObamaNelsoncare is wrong and become instrumental in its repeal.

 

 

I suspect that you will be retired come 2012 so I challenge you today to do what is right for America. To paraphrase Barry Goldwater; “In your heart you know that I am right”.

Gang of Six Plan is a $3 Trillion Tax Hike

The Cut, Cap and Balance plan was just tabled in the U.S. Senate so it goes nowhere.   Of course, under the guise of dealing with the issue we are now left with either the proposal of the gang of six, or the McConnell plan to just punt by giving the president the opportunity to make the next three debt ceiling extensions without any required spending cuts.       With that said we were impressed by a column by Marc A. Thiessen, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute which was published in the Washington Post yesterday.     We find it mind opening and it sure tells us that there still is no true debt ceiling plan that cuts spending over the next decade.

If this is the best we get, let's default and get it over with because the the rating agencies will downgrade our debt regardless.

The Gang of Six's $3 Trillion Tax Hike

Sen. Kent Conrad is claiming that if the Congressional Budget Office scored the "Gang of Six" deficit reduction plan, "it would find net tax relief of approximately $1.5 trillion." This is deeply misleading. Far from a net tax cut, the Gang of Six plan would result in a massive tax hike of as much as $3 trillion. Democrats understand this -- which is why President Obama was so quick to embrace the plan.

When normal people judge what constitutes a tax increase, they compare what they will pay tomorrow to what they are paying today. If that number goes up, it's a tax increase. That is not how the Gang of Six did its tax calculations. The Gang of Six's assumptions are based on current law, not current policy. Big difference. Current policy assumes Americans will continue to pay what they are paying right now. Current law assumes that, over the next decade, taxes will go up by some $4.5 trillion dollars because of tax cut expirations. The Gang of Six reduces this $4.5 trillion tax increase by $1.5 trillion -- and calls it a tax cut. But the practical result is really a $3 trillion tax increase over what Americans pay today. Consider:

The Gang of Six plan eliminates the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. In scoring this, they assume, based on current law, that tens of millions of middle-class families would have paid the AMT, at a cost of some $660 billion. But in practice, middle-class families never pay the AMT -- because every year Congress passes what is called an AMT "patch" exempting them from the tax. In other words, about $660 billion of the taxes the Gang of Six claims to be cutting over the next 10 years exist only on paper.
The Gang of Six plan also assumes that a number of other tax provisions called "tax extenders" -- such as the research and development tax credit -- will expire at the end of the year. But most of these provisions are routinely extended by Congress. That is another $750 billion over 10 years that that Gang of Six inaccurately counts toward its tax cut total.

The Gang of Six also assumes that all the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of 2012. But no serious person in Washington believes that all the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire. Even President Obama and congressional Democrats support extending some of these tax cuts, and Republicans oppose eliminating any of them. Unless Congress is ready to support the repeal all of the Bush tax cuts -- and thus the imposition of a massive middle-class tax increase -- that is another roughly $3 trillion over 10 years the Gang of Six inaccurately counts.

So if you judge the Gang of Six plan against current law -- which assumes millions of middle-class families would have paid the AMT for the first time next year, the R&D tax credit and other tax "extenders" will disappear, and all of the Bush tax cuts, including those for the middle class, will expire on Jan. 1, 2013 -- then yes, the Gang of Six cuts taxes by $1.5 trillion. But judged against current policy -- what Americans pay today in taxes -- the Gang of Six plan constitutes a massive tax increase.

And what about spending? Aside from freezing congressional pay for an unspecified period of time, repealing the CLASS act (a new long-term health-care benefit created under Obamacare), changes in the Consumer Price Index, and few other small provisions, there are no specific cuts in the Gang of Six plan at all. The plan instructs various congressional committees to produce unspecified cuts: The Armed Services Committee must come up with $80 billion; the HELP Committee must cut $70 billion; the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, $65 billion; Agriculture, $11 billion; Commerce, $11 billion; Energy, $6 billion, and so on - and Congress must eliminate $26 billion in unspecified waste, fraud, and abuse. But the plan offers no specifics.

To see just how absurd Conrad's tax cut claim is, consider this: If the Gang of Six really cut taxes by a net $1.5 trillion, how on earth does its plan reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion? That would require $5.2 trillion in spending cuts. But the plan outlines nowhere near those kinds of cuts. And even if it did, does anyone believe President Obama would sign into law a plan that cut spending $5.2 trillion while also cutting taxes by $1.5 trillion? Not a chance.

The Gang of Six plan constitutes a massive tax hike disguised as a tax cut. No wonder Obama likes it. The question is: Why would any Republican go along?

Rubio Shows his Stuff

We believe that U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is the future of the Republican Party and, frankly, the nation.  He may not be the nominee of the G.O.P. this year but at some point he will be.   Would he be a great vice presidential running mate this year?  Well as one other potential presidential aspirant might say, "You betcha!"

We are not in the habit of watching 'slay the nation' with it's worn out octagenarian liberal commentator, but we thought we'd share the interview with Rubio from this last week's show as it gives a solid impression of just who he is.   

Movin On Against Fox News

In today's 'we get e-mail' category we have one from the folks at Moveon.org and they obviously think that given the problem with Fox News' parent organization that now is the time to make an effort to put Fox News off the air.  They won't succeed but they will raise some money from a bunch of left wing nuts. 

Here's what they have to say:

"Could this be the end of Rupert Murdoch and Fox News?

Allegations in the U.K. against Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, Fox's parent company, just keep coming. Hacking into the phone of a 13-year-old murder victim, bribing government officials, and now claims of hacking into the voice mail of 9/11 victims and their families.¹

Now, the key is to find out how far Fox and the rest of Murdoch's news outlets went here in the U.S. If they've been as corrupt and criminal here as it looks like they've been in the U.K., then we might just see Murdoch's media empire crumble.

So we're launching a new campaign to build unavoidable public pressure for full investigations. We'll start tomorrow with a hard-hitting new ad asking whether Murdoch is "running a company or a crime syndicate."But first we need to the raise the money to get it on the air and ramp up the campaign.

Can you help hold Fox and Rupert Murdoch accountable here in the U.S.?

Yes, I can chip in $5 hold Murdoch accountable!

Rupert Murdoch has a huge amount of influence in this country. He owns some of the most influential news outlets in America including not only Fox News but The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and dozens more.

But his influence shouldn't mean that his companies can get away with crimes. In the U.K. we've seen what a tough investigation spurred by public outrage and pressure can do to expose the truth.

We deserve the same here in the U.S. We deserve to know whether Fox News or other Murdoch outlets have violated our laws. But just like in the U.K., it won't happen unless we can generate enough public pressure to force a real investigation and real accountability.

We're ready to ramp up a campaign for accountability right away by hitting the airwaves with our new ad as soon as we can raise the money."

Nelson Can't Reinvent His Failed Vote to Give the Nation Obamacare

From Ben Nelson paid for by YOUR TAX DOLLARS:

Senator Nelson's E-Update
July 20, 2011

$13 Billion in Deficit Reduction

"This week, I identified how to save $13 billion for deficit reduction. I introduced a bill addressing what the Associated Press called a glitch in the health care reform law. It inadvertently would allow some middle-income people to qualify for Medicaid, the health care safety net for the most vulnerable Americans. My legislation makes a common sense change so that only lower-income people remain eligible for Medicaid. The improvement also would steer $13 billion in savings to reduce the federal deficit, while protecting health care for Nebraska families."

Our Judas U.S. Senator Ben Nelson continues to try to fix the holes in the bill that he and his Cornhusker Kickback (along with the promise of $600,000 from his party to refurbish his likely-to-be-damaged image) gave Americans by his sellout of 70% of his constituency to Harry Reid and Barack Obama on Christmas Eve of 2009.

According to the Lincoln Journal Star and Politico, Nelson is trying to fix, in his words,  "determined to improve and strengthen the health care reform law before it becomes fully effective in 2014."  Of course this is double talk for his sellout and his failure (like those others he associates with in the Democratic Party) to read the original bill.

Among other things, Nelson has already:

• Voted to repeal the onerous 1099 legislation in the bill that would have required businesses to spend millions on worthless I.R.S. paperwork.
•  co-sponsored legislation to repeal a section of the new law that requires consumers with tax-advantaged medical savings accounts to get a prescription from their doctor before using funds from those accounts to purchase items such as aspirin or antacid and other over-the-counter products.

Now, Judas is trying to tell Nebraskans what a tax hawk he is and how he is going to save Americans $13 billion that can be used toward deficit reduction by amending the law to, "continue to count Social Security benefits as income when determining eligibility for Medicaid. If left unchanged, the new law no longer would count Social Security benefits of early retirees and expand Medicaid eligibility, beginning in 2014."  Maybe Judas and his comrades should have read the bill first.   And, of course, one might ask when did Ben decide this last issue needed to be fixed?   Could it be to tell folks with an opportune 2012 campaign message about how hard he is working to reduce deficits?

Nelson continues to tell his cohorts and Nebraskans, "Don't repeal it, repair it."  Apparently, he is still smarter than those 70% of Nebraskans he sold out on Christmas Eve.     Apparently, he is still smarter than the 50-60% of Americans who continue to oppose Nelson's Obamacare.

As we've suggested in past entries, Nelson and his fellow Obamacare suck-ups will run campaigns against parts of the bill already functioning come next year.   They will demagogue about how their opponents want to eliminate guaranteed health insurance coverage for children with pre-existing illnesses  (forget that parents could with incomes up to $80,000 could already jettison their kids from their health care plans and sign them up for SCHIP with better coverage for less outlays), how his opponents want to take away the right of parents to insure their irresponsible children up to age 26 who refuse to insure themselves and how seniors will lose dollars of drug coverage they are gradually getting through changes in the Medicare Drug Program 'doughnut hole'.

According to the Journal Star article Nelson has now, "launched a statewide radio ad campaign Wednesday pledging to defend Medicare and Social Security from Republican proposals that he said would "change Medicare into a voucher system and privatize Social Security."   More Nelson scare tactics and demagogue.

Nebraskans can't afford to listen to Nelson's plans for fixes of a bill he should never have voted for.    Nebraskans shouldn't believe his rhetoric.    They just need to find a true conservative to replace in 2012.

How Many Pensions Does Ewing Need?

It's great to know a common guy like John Ewing wants to go to Congress to represent the poor folks like him back home.   You know those who have retired in their 40's with pensions that make them millionaires and with health care provided free of charge until they are old enough to collect Medicare.     And gosh, if he wins, he'll have not only that but a Douglas County pension to rely on in the future.    And, of course, he'll get some social security as well.    Oh, and what a surprise, if he get's elected and stays in Congress for five years he'll have a Congressional pension to rely upon as well.  Four pensions--just like most of us.  Right?

Given his current income and his anticipated lifetime income we wonder how much more John needs before he'll end up abolishing his Bush/Obama tax cut if after his recent flip-flop he eliminates those for millionaires?  

Yep, John is just a simple guy like all of us who get $6,000 a month from his police pension and who now makes more than $100,000 a year with lifetime health care paid by the taxpayers.   With that pay raise he'll get as a congressman John will be making nearly a quarter-of-a-million a year including his pension.   Just a common working guy like the rest of us....... 

Why Pay Attention to The Objective Conservative

In addition to giving our readers an 'objective' and 'conservative' analysis of what is happening nationally, statewide and locally we often provide you information long before the press does.    Most recently, we told you weeks in advance (of the press) that George W. Bush would be in Omaha to throw out the first pitch at the College World Series.  More recently, we told you nearly two weeks in advance of Lt. Governor Sheehy's plans to file papers so he could start his fundraising for a 2014 run for governor.   In addition we provide you with:

• Links to current office holders and candidates
• Links to numerous websites
• One of the most updated list of upcoming conservative political events available
• Today's News

We also want your comments and hope you'll share your opinions, in agreement or otherwise, with us.  

Suttle Still Wants To Raise Taxes!

Our correspondents were at the Republican Forum luncheon today at Anthony's where amazingly the speaker was Mayor Jim Suttle.    Why in the world a liberal, tax-happy Democrat was allowed to address the forum leaves us scratching our heads.

Some Republicans anticipated this would be a rowdy event, but no fisticuffs or shouting took place.   Suttle drew a decent crowd in a relatively small area with only KPTM attending from the press, oops Joe Jordan also.

Lee Terry.'s Republican congressional opposition, Brett Lindstrom, was there with an entourage.   Jean Stothert was also present but deferred on an opportunity to speak, although she did say that she wanted to dispel the rumor that is floating about that she will be running against for congress against Lee Terry!   Suttle brought along his disgraced Chief of Staff Steve Oltmanns, who you will remember was fired for lying to the board of the Missouri-Papio Natural Resources District about his affair with a board member.   Others from Suttle's staff also attended.

Suttle, apparently trying to establish a relationship, began his speech with a reference to Everett Dirksen, of all people, as the epitome of a politician willing to work with the other side to promote the common good!!!!     He expanded on the need to "work together."  Then he told attendees how responsible and visionary his new budget is. He noted how effective his  administration had been in the last couple of years noting the necessity of making "hard decisions". He stated that $11 million had been saved in the fire department budget (give us a brake!) and $52 million in past 9 months as a result of police union contract and the wage freeze in the fire and police union contracts.   He said the negotiated fire contract exceeds what could have been gained had the CIR been involved.

One of his more interesting comments came in response to a question about whether he would continue seeking the 1/2 % sales tax increase authority from the state. His adamant response was, "Yes!", after which he said it was needed for Omaha's streets!  We thought that was what last year's increase in wheel tax was for.   Just how much is needed for roads and streets, and how much does the mayor think he needs for his various pet projects? Just how much tax is too much for this mayor??

In response to a question about jobs moving to Sarpy County, the Mayor said that the city had gained 1100 job and he kept mentioning the area of the airport for industrial expansion.   We'd like to see a list of those jobs and wonder whether that's a net gain? The Mayor indicated he was looking to Illinois and California companies to move to Omaha.   He said that in talking to a California company its first question about Omaha was,  " what is the 'diversity' situation in Omaha?"  That left some wondering about the type of company considering relocation.  Perhaps he could brag about the 'cultural proficiency' of the Omaha School Board?

In summary, it was a civil meeting where Suttle once again couldn't conceal his tax and spend goals, but at least there was not the need to call in what surly must have been a retinue of police stuffed into his Durango ready to start clubbing and subduing unruly Republicans. 

The Other Dave Nabity

We're not fans of Dave Nabity.   He's a control freak, an egocentric and a guy that one can't trust from a political standpoint.    Although we are also no fans of the Omaha Fire Department Management and Union (one might assert they are one in the same) we are waiting to see how Nabity deals with their libel suit against him.   

With that said we guess we'll have to add Nabity to our 'flip-floppers' list given the Utube video we recently came across.    We'll let you judge which personality was present when he did this interview.

Contractors' Ordinance Brings out Property Owners

Yesterday's Omaha City Council meeting was surprising not because of the turnout for the Mayor's annual budget speech (see posting below) but because of the turnout and the vociferousness of the crowd there to see what the Omaha City Council would do on an ordinance to license contractors.    

The ordinance has been in the works for several months now and this was to be the third reading which meant the ordinance could be passed.    After some clarification by Councilwoman Stothert about whether the original ordinance or the amended ordinance of the whole was up for discussion and passage, Stothert called for a representative of the planning and permits department (J. Davis), a representative of Metropolitan Omaha Property Owners Association and a representative of M.O.B.A (Metropolitan Omaha Builders Association) to discuss the proposed ordinance.   

M.O.B.A. had proposed the ordinance in hopes of licensing home builders and their representative seemed to be okay with the amended ordinance.   We also have been told that M.O.B.A. has been exerting considerable pressure on realtors to support the ordinance through an e-mail sent to many of them.   We hope to have a copy of that soon.

The city representative admitted that he had included provisions in the original which would have covered small property owners and that it was a mistake which had been addressed by removal of such in the amended ordinance.  

John Chatelain, representing M.O.P.O.A. spoke less than enthusiastically about the ordinance noting that such ordinances simply chip away at all citizens' rights.   He presented his objections and noted that the ordinance before the council still didn't address the licensing of handymen.    Stothert subsequently moved to lay over the ordinance until the handyman issue could be codified, August 16.  

We were surprised by the vocal opposition to the ordinance.   We were further surprised that Councilman Jerram indicated he'd vote against the ordinance and we got the same impression from Councilman Gray.

It looks to us like an attempt to regulate home builders has turned into much more than that.    While some may suggest that this is a way for M.O.B.A. to squeeze out some potential builders, it's not unreasonable for organizations to regulate their own at state or local levels, i.e., doctors, dentists, barbers, beauticians, etc.    But when it comes to small property owners who must do much of their maintenance by themselves or with handymen, we can understand their resistance to what could become a costly ordinance that is, frankly, an example of government overreaching.....

No Tax Increases--But No Reductions Either

Our correspondents were at yesterday's Omaha City Council Meeting, there for Mayor Suttle's 2012 budget presentation.  The council chambers were packed but, sadly, they weren't packed for the budget presentation.  A third of the chamber was cordoned off for city department managers and functionaries and another 40 or 50 were there to discuss the contractor licensing issue. 

We were surprised the presentation was as short as it was.   It began with finance director Pam Spaccarotella introducing a dog-and-pony video with various department members talking about their challenges and great works.   That lasted about 7 minutes and then Suttle spent about 10 minutes introducing his budget--a budget that because of last year's tax increases does not require any tax increases this year.    The mayor told us:

• The budget is a shining example of what happens when all of us pull together.
• The efforts of his administration have paid off.   We will be able to pay for vital city services without tax increases.  
• The no-tax increase budget is a result of "significant spending cuts combined with minimal tax increases that allows us to be in the black."

We're not sure that the term 'minimal' is exactly right considering that Suttle has raised property taxes by  nearly 16% over the last two years and added a 2.5% restaurant sales (oops, occupation) tax last year which is also producing millions of dollars more than it was originally estimated to produce.   

Of course, everyone will be delighted to pass his budget with only minor tinkering since there are no tax increases.   Forget anyone suggesting that maybe some reduction in those taxes ought to be considered....

Ewing Flip-Flops from First Public Statements

Former Omaha policeman and current Douglas County Treasurer John Ewing is already showing how unprepared he is to run against Lee Terry for the Second Congressional District seat.  

In his initial comments to the local daily's 'Star Reporterette' Robyn Tysver on Saturday he said he would repeal the Bush tax cuts.    By the way, those would be the same tax cuts his great leader signed off on last year so maybe they are now the Obama tax cuts.  

When Lincoln's Star Journal reporter Don Walton apparently informed Ewing that repealing the Bush (Obama) tax cuts would raise taxes on the poor (as if they paid any taxes) and/or the middle class, Ewing initiated his first flip-flop and said that he would only rescind the Bush (Obama) tax cuts on those making more than $1 million dollars.  

We can expect a lot more of these gaffs from Ewing as he tries to figure out who he is, what he really stands for and what his liberal Democrat promoters want him to stand for.  There will be lots of flip-flops.   Stay tuned.

Gingrich Supports Cut, Cap and Balance Unless it's for Himself

In our 'We get e-mail' category we got one from Newt Gingrich who among other things told us:

• The president yesterday made it clear which side he is on when he threatened to veto the Cut, Cap and Balance Act, a courageous attempt by House Republicans to force Washington to embrace fiscal responsibility.
• Despite the president’s threat, conservatives must not back down.
• President Obama is putting the “bully” back in the “bully pulpit” and we must stand up to him and present a clear contrast to his big government agenda.
• The media and political establishment in Washington would have you believe that during my Speakership, we lost our fight with President Clinton when we went head to head over government spending. They say the same thing will happen now, so conservatives should cower.
• The American people are ready for smaller, more accountable and less expensive government.

We like Newt but he is unelectable and should just go home and try to write another book to payoff his irresponsible accumulation of campaign debt--more than $1 Million.   His personal life and political campaign fiscal restraint don't make him the best voice to be preaching fiscal conservatism. 

Interesting, Newt ended his e-mail with a not unsurprising request: "P.S. Once you sign our petition, please consider making a donation of $10, $25 or even $50 to help us continue our fight for fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget.

Culturally Proficient Embarrassment Expands

It's bad enough that the embarrassing purchase of $130,000 worth of worthless culturally proficient training books with a grant funded by an equally worthless stimulus has been brought to the public attention, but the embarrassment for Omaha continues.    Yesterday, the fill-in host of the Rush Limbaugh show spent a good portion of the show discussing the silliness of the purchase.   Yes, 20 million Americans heard of the embarrassing purchase.  20 million Americans now have a new image of Omaha, not a good one.   They probably now think of Omaha as Berkley East....

According to today's local daily, the Omaha School Board met last night but conveniently omitted a discussion of its diversity goals from the agenda claiming the item had been mistakenly included.  We're told by the local daily that, "School board members did not discuss the book or its diversity plan. Superintendent John Mackiel declined to answer a reporter's questions and asked that they be submitted in writing."

We can certainly understand why these 12 board members, all of whom should be replaced by the voters, didn't want to discuss the topic.   Further evidence of the folly is that Superintendent Mackiel refused to answer questions, using the evasive tactic of saying that questions should be submitted to him in writing.   This from a highly paid, ineffective public servant who has used the board members as pawns to pursue his liberal culturally correct, oops 'proficient' agenda.  

We haven't checked into the potential of having a recall for these members,but someone should.   All twelve of these board members should be voted out of office with a new board replacing Mackiel and his top-heavy administration. 

p.s. You can find the contact information for each of the board members under our contacts section in the lower right hand column. 

It's amazing how times change with elections.    Not only did the Prince of Peace Nobel Laureate President of the World of Equal Nations Commissar Barack Barry Soetoro Hussein Obama vote against raising the national debt ceiling (one of the view non "here" votes he made in his brief tenure as a U.S. Senator, but so did his now-pawn Harry Reid.   Apparently $3 trillion over Bush's first five years in office was more important than the $4.5 trillion the current occupant of the White House has given us in just over two years.  

C.I.R. Reform? What Reform?

More and more it appears that citizens were sold a bill of goods on the C.I.R. reform bill (LB 397) passed by the legislature in its waning days with the help of Brad Ashford and Steve Lathrop.   The recent article by the local daily indicated just how confusing things remain.  We still don't know what cities Omaha or others are compared to since it seems to be mutually agreed process between the cities and the unions arbitrated by the court.

Today, we read Brad Ashford saying, "Does Omaha get out of the woods? No, "Omaha got themselves into a real fix on pensions. And you're not going to get out of that in this bill."

We were told that the bill would resolve wage disputes by considering pensions and benefits and adjusting pay rates.  But none of this will actually solve Omaha's outlay for the $500,000+ million abyss that Mayors Fahey and Suttle sank the city into by their incompetent management and sell-out to the police and fire unions whose support they bought in the process.   Suttle says the problem was kicked down the road to him, but he set tongue-tied in a coma-like state on the council for four years while the pension funds massively tanked.    He was too busy attending every funeral and public event he could, running for mayor not looking at silly pension reports from the actuaries.

It won't be long before folks in city hall and the business community realize that the LB397 fix wasn't a fix at all and that some like State Senator John Nelson were right in saying that the whole C.I.R. should be abolished.

Conservatives Will Lose Debt Argument to Reid, McConnell and Obama

It is becoming more and more apparent that our country's legislators (we use the term loosely) are going to give in to Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell and the current occupant of the White House on extending the national debt.    More and more it sounds like the McConnell plan of raising the debt and allowing three non-meaningful votes by Republicans over the next 16 months will pass.

In other words, virtually nothing will be done to stop the hemorrhaging.   Obama will skate free having once again never proposed any plan.    Republicans other than those brave ones who got elected in 2010 and a few other principled ones will be ignored.  

We wonder how well the credit rating agencies will ultimately respond to this non-solution solution which only moves our nation further down the rails to a train wreck?  It's more than getting past August 2nd and the American public will find out before long.

Ewing: The Difference is Black And White

We listened to John Ewing in his brief KFAB interview this morning and to say the least, we were not impressed.    He did say one thing that we agree with--that business needs certainty before it starts creating jobs again.   Unfortunately, his answers to creating certainty are the same as the guy (Obama) who has got us to this pinnacle of economic collapse and uncertainty.

Ewing will be a great Obama running mate as he, like his hero, supports raising the debt ceiling by taxing those bad rich guys.   He promotes the same class warfare saying that those nasty millionaires need to pay more taxes and need to be part of the debt solution.  Forget that 47% of the population pays no federal taxes at all and that those evil millionaires, the ones that create jobs, pay a huge percentage of the tax revenue collected by the government now. 

Ewing, like his hero, voiced his support for the stimulus while acknowledging it didn't work as well as expected but he did provide the Obama/Democrat talking point that it saved millions of jobs and cut the job losses.   Yeah, 9.2%!

Ewing is the Democrat's best hope at beating Lee Terry in 2012, but he is a false hope.   His campaign will be based on Obama's success of getting out blacks in the 2nd Congressional District, a district that now has more Republicans than it did in 2008 when Obama won the electoral vote and more Republicans than id did when Nebraska Democrats' 'white' hero was resoundingly defeated by Terry in 2010.

If Republicans were smart, they'd demand Ewing resign as Douglas County Treasurer.  Running for the Congress is a full time job.   And of course, Ewing has the benefit of his huge police pension and his health care paid in full by it until he is 65 so he can afford to give up his other $100,000 plus-a-year job.   If he doesn't give up the job, Republicans should make very sure he isn't making phone calls and running for Congress unobserved from his private office in the Douglas County Courthouse.

The media will delight in this race.   The local daily will try to sell lots of papers as it tells us how close the race is going to be--just as it did in the last 'White' race and those before.   

Bottom line, is Ewing is just another liberal, Obama supporting Democrat.   The difference between Ewing and Terry is black and white for the voters.

We Are All Barbarians -- Doug Patton

Marcus and Michele Bachmann are embarking on the greatest adventure and the worst nightmare of their lives. When the Minnesota congresswoman announced that she was running for president of the United States, she threw down the gauntlet to the enemies of decency and tradition. The Bachmanns clearly knew they were in for one wild ride, as evidenced by the latest attack on them by the homosexual lobby and the weasels in the mainstream media.

Marcus Bachmann, who runs a counseling practice back home in St. Paul, is not exactly on the politically correct side of the whole debate over homosexuality in today's America. Not that it is much of a debate anymore, with far too many Christians cowering in fear at what the deviant, secular left — especially those in the media — may think about them. But to the extent there are still courageous believers left in this country who are willing to tell the truth, apparently we can count Marcus Bachmann among them. And that has given his wife's enemies fresh fodder for their petty prejudices.

The Bachmanns have nurtured their own successful careers, him as a family counselor, her as a tax attorney and legislator. Their devout Christian faith has infused their 33-year marriage with values by which they have managed to raise five children of their own, as well as 23 foster children, most of them abused teenage girls. Anyone who has ever taken on such responsibility knows what it means. Having served briefly as foster parents for two children a few years ago, my wife and I can only imagine the love and dedication this couple must possess in order to do what they have done over the years.

But, of course, the same media that refused to examine the radical past of Barack and Michelle Obama is now digging halfway to China for anything remotely controversial on Marcus and Michele Bachmann. The Bachmanns' crime is holding traditional views on marriage and sexuality, and the media have found a recording of Marcus Bachmann, a sometime guest on local Christian radio programs, wherein he appears to refer to homosexuals as "barbarians."

"Barbarians need to be educated," he is heard to say on the tape. "They need to be disciplined, and just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn't mean that we're supposed to go down that road. That's what's called a sinful nature. And we have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings."

Mr. Bachmann says his remarks have been taken out of context, but nevertheless, the comments appear to be what those on the left want them to be, so these statements will no doubt pass into the annuls of what has come to be known as "conventional wisdom." Like J. Edgar Hoover was a cross-dresser or Clarence Thomas likes to talk dirty to his subordinates. Say it often enough and long enough and it becomes the "truth."

Facts mean little or nothing to those who despise virtue. They hate the Bachmanns because the couple believes that monogamous heterosexuality is God's perfect design for mankind. They hate them because Marcus and Michele are convinced that traditional marriage is the best environment in which to raise children. And they hate them because, in his counseling practice, Marcus Bachmann offers help to individuals who desire to escape the bondage of the homosexual lifestyle.

But the main reason the Bachmanns are hated by their enemies is an age-old one. They dare to believe in something called sin as a plague upon all men and women. And further, they believe that there is an answer for that sin. It is called repentance. Jesus Christ told his disciples two millennia ago that He was "the way, the truth and the life, and no man comes to the Father but by Me." He also said, "If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you."

The truth the Bachmanns understand, and that the world cannot accept, is that apart from the power of Christ, we are all barbarians.

___________________________________________

© 2011 by Doug Patton

______________________________________________________________________________

Doug Patton describes himself as a recovering political speechwriter who agrees with himself much more often than not. Now working as a freelance writer, his weekly columns of sage political analysis are published the world over by legions of discerning bloggers, courageous webmasters and open-minded newspaper editors. Astute supporters and inane detractors alike are encouraged to e-mail him with their pithy comments at dougpatton@cox.net.