2002 Columns

Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience. By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.

Capitol Correspondent - the NCC Column 2002

Diocesan Newspaper columns by James R. Cunningham

New Year, New Session Set to Begin (1/4/02)

Fetal Homicide Bill Under Debate (1/18/02)

Legislative Bills Worth Watching (2/1/02)

LB 1264 Would Establish State Newcomer Policy (2/15/02)

Perseverance Helps Fetal Homicide Bill Become Law (3/1/02)

End of Legislative Session Will Be Bumpy (3/15/02)

Special Session?! (3/29/02)

LB 952, Access to Adoption Records (4/12/02)

Legislative Session Ends (4/26/02)

Election Day, Go to the Polls (5/10/02)

Petitions, Rating the Farm Bill and a Quiz (5/24/02)

Legislative Special Session in the Works? (6/7/02)

Congress Eyes Minimum Wage, Welfare Reform (6/21/02)

Speaker Missing for Special Session, Death Penalty (7/5/02)

Supreme Court Rules on Voucher (7/19/02)

Cut Legislators Some Slack (8/16/02)

Looks Like Summer is Over (8/30/02)

School Option Enrollment Program Challenged (9/13/02)

Bet on Gambling (9/27/02)

General Election Candidate Surveys (10/11/02)

Special Session-Death Penalty (10/25/02)

Election Issues (11/8/02)

Special Session Results-Death Penalty (11/22/02)

Initiative 300-Protecting the Family Farm for 20 Years (12/6/02)

Multiplier Idea Rightfully Thumped (12/20/02)

Capitol Correspondent for 01/04/02

New Year, New Session Set to Begin

The second regular session of the 97^th Nebraska Legislature starts next week; "the first Wednesday after the first Monday in January," as prescribed by Article III, Section 10 of the Nebraska Constitution.

As the second of two regular sessions that constitute a Legislature, this meeting in the even-numbered year will last up to 60 legislative days, unless extended. Another characteristic of a second session is that legislative bills that were neither passed nor killed in the first session are carried over with the same status they had when the first session finished. In addition, a big bunch of new bills will be introduced.

Two new legislators will be participating this session. Senator Vicki McDonald now represents District 41. She was appointed by Governor Mike Johanns to succeed her late husband, Richard McDonald, who died in early August after battling cancer from the beginning of his first term in the Legislature. Senator John Synowiecki now represents District 7. He was sworn into office on December 18, after being appointed to succeed Senator John Hilgert, who shifted his public service to the administrative branch, as the new head of the State Department of Veteran’s Affairs.

We will continue using this column in the diocesan newspapers to describe and comment on bills and other legislative matters. In addition, information about the Nebraska Catholic Conference’s positions and perspectives on legislation will be provided on its website: www.nebcathcon.org. Also, the State operates an official website of the Nebraska Legislature: www.unicam.state.ne.us.

Time for Prayer

As has been our custom for some 15 years, we acknowledge the beginning of a new session of the Legislature by offering a special prayer. It is adapted from an invocation originally given by Most Rev. John Quinn, when he was Archbishop of San Francisco, at a meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

On behalf of the members and staff of the 97^th Nebraska Legislature, Second Session, Let Us Pray:

"Heavenly Father, we are pausing in the midst of turbulent times to be aware of you.

"Let those who represent us be truly aware of your presence. Help them to conduct an opinion poll of your wishes in regard to themselves and all those they represent.

"Grant them the ability to know that you genuinely love them. In their quiet moments, allow them to be proud of the profession they are in. Help them to be calmly in control of their lives and not be paralyzed by insecurities or driven by ambition, the value of which they may or may not have reflected on for some time. Grant them the flexibility to grow, the resiliency to accept the setbacks, and the fortitude to adhere to convictions in which they believe.

"If they have the label of conservative, given them the tolerance at least to study the changes that are sweeping society. If they are thought of as liberal, make them perceptive of what is available in existing structures. If they are moderate, keep them from confusing moderation with lethargy.

"May they always be mindful of the awesome nature of their vocation—a position in which they profoundly affect so many lives. May they have the common sense to recognize that good, truth and beauty, no re-election, are wise priorities.

"Never allow them to be carried away with their own importance. Grant them the serenity of realizing that the crisis of confidence in government is not current, but as old as government itself.

"Let them never forget that this world’s power pales in significance when measured against the treasures of eternal life which you have promised us. May they use whatever influence and skills they have for your greater honor and glory for the welfare of the people. Amen."

A Rookie’s Take

As part of our holiday leisure we have enjoyed reading "Chip Shots," a book authored this Fall by State Senator Chip Maxwell on the subject of his first year of serving in the Nebraska Legislature. Senator Maxwell was elected in November 2000 as the representative for District 9 in Omaha. The subtitle of his 95-page book describes the subject: "A Rookie State Senator’s Take on the Nebraska Legislature."

"Chip Shots" is unique, interesting, and insightful. It combines seriousness and fun in its disclosures from the perspective of a first-year legislator. It is respectful of the institution that is the Legislature, but it is not stuffy in its approach or in the way it develops its insights.

Anyone with an interest in the Unicameral or a desire to learn more about what the process is really like will find "Chips Shots" to be an amusing and worthwhile read. It is in bookstores in Lincoln and Omaha.

Good Reaction, Bad Error

We have greatly appreciated the numerous positive comments we have received regarding our recent column (December 21) about Arthur F. Mullen, a famous and truly active Nebraskan in the years between 1900 and his death in 1938. We were especially pleased to hear from several Mullen relatives. We were able to relate to them how much we enjoyed reading his autobiography, "The Western Democrat."

One thing we regret, however, is that in the column we erroneously identified Arthur Mullen’s wife as Mary Nolan Mullin, when in fact her maiden name was Dolan, not Nolan. That was a mistake of carelessness, for which we apologize.

Capitol Correspondent for 01/18/02

Fetal Homicide Bill Up for Debate

Among the legislative bills carried over from the 2001 regular session of the Nebraska Unicameral and pending in the 2002 session now underway is LB 824, which proposes to include unborn children of any gestational age within the coverage of the homicide statutes.

This legislation would make the killing of an unborn child a homicide whenever it would be homicide if the child had sustained the lethal injuries after live birth. Given Roe v. Wade, the bill excludes abortion from its scope, as well as any conduct of the pregnant woman herself.

This reform legislation is overdue in Nebraska. It will rectify an antiquated rule of law: that an assailant cannot be charged with the homicide of an unborn child at all, even if the child is born alive, then dies as a result of prenatal injuries inflected by criminal agency of the assailant.

Some skeptics and opponents of LB 824 have asserted that the legislation is too broad in scope. Obviously, such an assertion lacks substance unless those making it are distinguishing between pre-natal and post-natal victims on some basis, such as developmental characteristics or status or value. Otherwise, when saying LB 824 is too broad they would necessarily be saying that the current law on homicide is too broad. As offered, the bill doesn’t redefine any crime of homicide; it only expands the category of victims of homicide to include unborn children.

Far Fetched

As part of these assertions that LB 824 is too broad, some far-fetched hypotheticals have been fed to the media. One such hypothetical was described in an article in the Dec. 6 Omaha World Herald, as follows: "This bill is so broadly written that if you have a city ordinance requiring people to scoop snow off sidewalks and a pregnant woman falls on an unscooped sidewalk and miscarries, the property owner could be charged with manslaughter."

Presumably, that hypothetical is intended to play off of the current state criminal law defining manslaughter, Section 28-305 of the state statutes: "A person commits manslaughter if he or she…causes the death of another person unintentionally while in the commission of an unlawful act."

In our view, that hypothetical is at least 99 percent implausible and should be given no regard. The intent behind, most likely, is to confuse and discredit LB 824.

For one thing, the idea that failing to abide by a municipal regulatory ordinance governing clean sidewalks constitutes "unlawful act" for purposes of a state law defining the crime of manslaughter strikes us as absurd. The idea that provisions of the state’s criminal code can be dependent upon and subject to whatever local ordinances there are, or that the state cedes some authority to define crimes to local subdivisions, seems well beyond the bounds of reason or probability.

Assuming, hypothetically, that Omaha has a snow-free sidewalk ordinance, but Falls City and Alliance do not, then the same set of facts would be manslaughter in Douglas County, but not in Richardson or Box Butte counties. That’s implausible and absurd. What’s more, assume Omaha has such an ordinance, but Bennington does not. The same set of facts would be manslaughter in Douglas County, but also would not be manslaughter in Douglas County. That’s implausible and absurd.

What is plausible and reasonable is that "unlawful act" for purposes of the manslaughter statute necessarily refers to a criminal law of statewide application.

Nevertheless, for purposes of analysis let’s assume the hypothetical is plausible and reasonable. Presumably, under those facts and the law as proposed to be amended by LB 824, the property owner could be prosecuted for manslaughter for the death of the unborn child. If the prosecutor, exercising the discretion of his or her authority, opted to prosecute, and presented evidence sufficient to persuade a jury of causation and all other elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the offender would be convicted of a Class III felony, punishable by one to 20 years in prison and/or a $25,000 fine.

Equal or Unequal Status

According to skeptics and opponents of LB 824, that hypothetical shows the bill is too broad and therefore not good legislation.

But what makes it too broad? Is it too broad because the term "unlawful act", as it already exists in the manslaughter law, and would continue to exist, is too broad? Or is it too broad because it would allow prosecution for causing the death of an unborn child?

What if the woman who slipped and fell on the unscooped sidewalk was not pregnant, but struck her head and died as a result? Or what if a woman carrying a young child in her arms slipped and fell and lost her hold of the infant, who landed on his head and died as a result. Assuming the hypothetical, the property owner could be prosecuted for manslaughter. Are these applications too broad?

If the crime of manslaughter is too broad because it allows for prosecution for deaths caused by any "unlawful act," even failing to scoop snow off a sidewalk, then those who are troubled by this potentiality should not attack LB 824; they should work to clarify what "unlawful act" means for purposes of manslaughter.

But the scope of manslaughter is probably not the real concern of those who are willing to offer such a far-fetched scenario for public consumption. What they really mean, we suspect, is that when a pregnant woman slips on an unlawfully maintained sidewalk and suffers a miscarriage as a result, there should not be even the potential for a crime of manslaughter, because the victim is just a fetus.

If one’s real reason for asserting that LB 824 is too broad is a perspective that the violent death of a fetus is less significant than the violent death of an infant or a woman or any other person—that the life of an unborn child is less worthy of protection, even in contexts in which it can be protected—then whoever makes such an assertion should straightforwardly admit that.

Capitol Correspondent for 02/01/02

Some of the Bills Worth Watching

The main period of new bill introductions for this session of the Nebraska Legislature closed Jan. 23, the tenth legislative day of the 60 scheduled to take place. The tab at closing was 450 new bills, which join about that same number carried over from last year’s first regular session of this Unicameral.

The number of new bills is actually below the number introduced in most even-year sessions of recent vintage. No doubt a reason behind the restraint is the overriding concern with the State’s fiscal condition. This Legislature has already had a special session that reduced the budget for the fiscal 2001-03 Biennium, and more cuts are anticipated. Concern about the budget means there aren’t many niches for proposals that would require new or additional funding.

Since every bill that proposes an idea is required to have a public hearing, that process is happening now on weekday afternoons at the State Capitol. The Legislature’s standing committees conduct the public hearings on the bills referred to their respective jurisdictions. Since a significant number of carry over bills are already "on the floor," the legislators meet as a full body from nine to Noon on most days and then convene after lunch as committees.

Reviewing and Keeping Tabs

At the Nebraska Catholic Conference, we are reviewing all the new bills that have been introduced, while still keeping tabs on carryover bills that have had our attention since last year. The NCC governing board, under the leadership of the three Diocesan Bishops, will soon receive an extensive report on both categories of legislation.

Following is preliminary analysis of just a few of the new bills that are likely to receive attention from the Conference during the this legislative session:

LB 1095 proposes to reduce the time that low and limited-income children can be continuously eligible for medical assistance (Medicaid) without a re-determination of their eligibility.

In Nebraska, children are eligible for medical assistance if their family’s income is below 185 percent of the federal poverty level. As permitted by federal policy, coverage lasts for 12 months before an eligibility review is undertaken. This bill would reduce that to six months. Thereafter, according to the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Finance and Support, month-to-month reviews would be used to more quickly identify children who are no longer eligible.

According to the bill’s fiscal note, the change could reduce general fund costs by $3.8 million annually. That may be attractive to some legislators, but there is more to this proposal than a cost savings. In fact, it strikes us initially as a harsh and shortsighted idea. It would have a negative impact on the continuity of medical care for children and it would increase the number of uninsured children in the state.

In the abstract this bill seems reasonable, but what of the human reality? Is it sound, fair and administratively efficient public policy to cancel medical coverage for children who were poor enough to qualify just six months ago? Moreover, a system with added reliance on administrative action brings more skepticism than confidence, especially in light of the tarnish already affecting the child-support system.

Careful on Cloning

The official description of LB 1067 is that it proposes, "to prohibit activities relating to human reproductive cloning."

At first blush that sounds like a good idea. But this bill requires and deserves a very careful analysis and thorough consideration.

It would ban human reproductive cloning and implanting or attempting to implant "the product of somatic cell nuclear transfer into a uterine environment so as to initiate a pregnancy", but it would specifically not restrict biomedical research using "somatic cell nuclear transfer or other cloning technologies." Stay tuned.

Death Penalty

Two more bills proposing to change Nebraska’s method of carrying out the death penalty from electrocution to lethal injection have been introduced. LB 865 and LB 1281 join two carry-over bills of similar substance already being held by the Judiciary Committee. The reason for more bills is not readily apparent, but the fact they were introduced does mean this subject will have another public hearing.

LB 1281 also proposes some changes in the procedures used to determine whether first-degree murder is punished by death or by life imprisonment. Included is a proposed requirement that all determinations of the sentence of death would have to be made unanimously by a three-judge panel, using a modified approach of weighing aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Free or Not

The Nebraska Constitution requires that the Legislature provide for free instruction in the "common schools" of all persons between the ages of five and 21.

What exactly does "free instruction" mean in light of the increasingly common practice of governmental subdivisions, i.e. school districts, charging fees for activities and supplies? Some parents have challenged the concept, such that the Legislature is probably going to have to respond. No fewer than seven bills have been introduced on this subject. Stay tuned.

A bill that touches more indirectly on education is one of the most flawed proposals we have spotted so far. It’s LB 1225. It would give public school teachers a state income tax credit based on the amount of property tax they pay for school-district support. Should the tax credit exceed the tax liability, the recipient would be refunded the balance.

For starters, this bill discriminates against state-credentialed professional educators educating children in state-approved and accredited private schools, and it discriminates against Nebraskans who work for all the other political subdivisions funded with property taxes.

Capitol Correspondent for 02-15-02

LB 1264 Would Establish State Newcomer Policy

Of the many dozens of bills that are considered by the Nebraska Legislature, there aren’t many that can reasonably be classified as inspiring or uplifting. That’s really not the inherent nature or impact of legislation, the essential purposes of which are to establish public policy and govern.

A case can be made that a bill in this session of the Legislature does fit that classification. It is LB 1264. It proposes that Nebraska should become the first state in the nation to establish a "state newcomer policy" to guide the actions of state government in dealing with the needs and challenges involving newcomers to the state and the communities in which they settle.

The cornerstone of this policy will be to consistently welcome newcomers, to lower barriers to their participation in Nebraska’s good life and to provide them with equal opportunity.

Although the term "newcomers" is not specifically defined in LB 1264, it is readily apparent from the background and context of the bill that "newcomers" refers to new immigrants, more specifically the new immigrant workforce, primarily Hispanic/Latino families and individuals who have relocated to Nebraska communities, rural as well as urban, and who contribute significantly to the labor needs of Nebraska’s economic base, particularly in meatpacking. It is estimated that Nebraska’s "new immigrant" population increased by nearly 160% during the 1990’s. They have come in search of a better life, just like thousands of immigrants who have come before them.

Task Force Recommendation

The origin of LB 1264 actually exists in previous legislation. In 2000, legislators passed and the Governor approved LB 1363, creating the Task Force on Productive Integration of the Immigration Workforce Population. This Task Force was charged with studying immigrant workforce issues and providing guidance to policymakers for how the State can productively deal with issues arising from these demographic changes.

Between September, 2000 and August, 2001, the 16-member Task Force conducted public hearings and community meetings, toured workplaces, schools and community facilities, and also sponsored independent research to take stock of the activities, programs and initiatives that already exist or are deemed necessary for the integration of immigrant workers and their families into local communities and the state.

The Task Force concluded that policymakers must have two priorities as they respond to the challenges facing Nebraska’s newcomers and communities. The highest priority must be to ensure that children receive access to quality education, medical care, safe and adequate housing and opportunities for an economic and leadership future. The second priority is to promote the economic, social and cultural opportunities that the newcomers represent, because such opportunities enhance the future for all Nebraskans.

As a first step, the Task Force recommends placement into law of a principled stand that in Nebraska public policy will consistently welcome and seek to integrate these newcomers; that is, a "State Newcomer Policy." That’s LB 1264. It’s a building block.

Senators Matt Connealy of Decatur and Ray Aguilar of Grand Island were Task Force members. They are co-sponsors of LB 1264, which had a public hearing before the Legislature’s Government Committee last week. Action on the bill is pending.

Guide Actions, Encourage Innovation

A legitimate question about LB 1264 is, what are its practical effects?

The answer is that it’s a policy statement. It is designed to guide the actions of all components of state government, so that when a state agency, institution, committee, commission or court plans or implements services or programs, then integrating newcomers, lowering barriers to participation and assuring equal opportunity will be priorities of such an effort. Moreover, state resources will be utilized to complement local community efforts in a coordinated fashion. And finally, the policy will encourage local communities to develop innovative strategies to address local needs and challenges.

Perhaps one of the reasons why we suggest that LB 1264 can be classified as inspiring and uplifting is that it is very much thematically akin to the pastoral statement issued by the U.S. Catholic Bishops in November 2000, titled "Welcoming the Stranger Among Us: Unity in Diversity."

Both the pastoral statement and LB 1264 emphasize responding to the needs and challenges of the new immigration. But both also recognize the opportunities—cultural, economic and social—that are inherent in welcoming the newcomers.

Numerous aspects of the pastoral statement are relevant to and interrelate with the policy ideas of LB 1264. One statement in particular stands out in our opinion:

"These immigrants, new to our shores [one can readily substitute "These newcomers to our state"] call us out of our unawareness to a conversion of mind and heart through which we are able to offer a genuine and suitable welcome, to share together as brothers and sisters at the same table, and to work side by side to improve the quality of life for society’s marginalized members."

LB 1264 is inspiring and uplifting because it is about conversion.

Capitol Correspondent for 03-01-02

Perseverance Helps Fetal Homicide Bill Become Law

Perseverance and dedication to cause have rewards. That message was underscored recently when Nebraska legislators voted 42-5 to pass LB 824, to be known and cited as the Homicide of the Unborn Child Act. Governor Johanns signed the bill into law on February 27. It is now in effect.

The result is that a deficiency in Nebraska law has been rectified. Nebraska now extends to unborn children, at any stage of development in utero, protection of the criminal law. LB 824 creates specifically defined crimes of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter and motor vehicle homicide when the victim is an unborn child. An exception is carved out for abortion, conceding to the tragic fact that Roe v. Wade gives pregnant women a privacy right to abort their pregnancies.

Perseverance and dedication were key elements of the outstanding leadership that Senator Mike Foley of Lincoln provided on LB 824. Even though the legislation was decisively favored in voting, the course was not easy. The proposal had legal complexities, and opponents made it controversial. It was vigorously opposed and filibustered by Senator Ernie Chambers and others.

The bill was introduced on January 17 of last year. After a public hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee on March 9, it was reported advanced to the full Legislature on April 12, thanks to affirmative votes from five committee members: Senators Tom Baker, Gene Tyson, Dwite Pederson, Jennie Robak and Matt Connealy. Senator Foley designated the bill as his priority for the 2001 session, but it was one of the few priority bills that did not make it to the top of the agenda before that 90-day session adjourned. Senator Foley renewed his efforts this year.

The legislative journey toward making the killing of an unborn child a homicide (outside the context of abortion) began several years ago. Senator Foley's predecessor, Senator La Von Crosby, kept attention on this deficiency in Nebraska law by sponsoring similar legislation in prior years. Her perseverance and dedication to cause are part of the history and accomplishment of LB 824.

Key Developments

In addition to advancement by a majority of the Judiciary Committee, there were two other key developments that affected LB 824.

The first such development occurred during the first round of floor debate, General File. It happened when Senator Foley agreed to modifications (of the original formulation of the bill) that brought Senator Kermit Brashear of Omaha, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, on board as a supporter of the measure. That development, which was assisted by the mediating efforts of Senator Curt Bromm of Wahoo, also attracted support from other legislators, including Senators Pat Bourne of Omaha and Don Pederson of North Platte, both attorneys. The added support not only increased the bill's credibility, but also ensured that there were enough votes to end the filibuster.

In its original form, LB 824 would have expanded the meaning of "person", as it relates to the current general law on homicide, to include unborn children, while also acknowledging the exceptions required by abortion jurisprudence. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with that approach, but some would-be supporters were not comfortable with it.

The agreement between Senators Foley and Brashear established separate crimes of homicide when the victim is an unborn child. Some definitional changes were made, and some penalties were adjusted. One especially significant modification was elimination of the death penalty as a possible punishment for first-degree murder of an unborn child.

Threat to Integrity

The other key development occurred during the second stage of floor debate, Select File. It was the resounding defeat, 27-11, of a bogus amendment offered by Senator Ron Raikes of Lincoln.

This amendment posed a serious threat to the integrity of LB 824. It proposed to change the title and thrust of the bill from "homicide of the unborn child" to "criminal termination of pregnancy." It would have turned the policy impact of LB 824 inside out by failing to acknowledge that a violent, nonconsensual act perpetrated against a pregnant woman leaves two victims, mother and child.

While Sen. Raikes' amendment tacitly recognized what takes place when an unborn child is killed, its true colors were exposed by the fact that it avoided defining the key term, "termination of pregnancy." Of course, in order to do so in an intellectually honest manner it would have had to acknowledge the existence of another human life, in addition to the pregnant woman. The result of its verbal contortions was that it proposed to define and punish as crimes equivalent to murder and manslaughter aggressors' acts terminating pregnancies even if the acts did not cause the death of an unborn child. In other words, it would have created crimes with penalties the same as murder and manslaughter, but without any requirement that anyone (or anything) be killed. It was that ridiculous.

Only 11 legislators joined Senator Raikes in voting for his amendment: Brown, Chambers, Connealy, Janssen, Kruse, Landis, Price, (Raikes), Schimek, Suttle, Thompson and Wickersham. The following 27 senators, to their credit, voted with Senator Foley to reject that amendment: Aguilar, Baker, Brashear, Bromm, Bruning, Burling, Byars, Coordsen, Cunningham, Dierks, Engel, Erdman, (Foley), Hudkins, Jensen, Kremer, Dwite Pedersen, Quandahl, Redfield, Robak, Schrock, Smith, Stuhr, Synowiecki, Tyson, Vrtiska and Wehrbein.

On Final Reading, the 42 legislators who voted to pass LB 824 were the following: Aguilar, Baker, Beutler, Bourne, Brashear, Bromm, Brown, Bruning, Burling, Byars, Connealy, Coordsen, Cudaback, Cunningham, Engel, Erdman, Foley, Hartnett, Hudkins, Janssen, Jensen, Jones, Kremer, Kristensen, Kruse, Maxwell, McDonald, Pedersen, Pederson, Preister, Quandahl, Redfield, Robak, Schrock, Smith, Stuhr, Suttle, Synowiecki, Thompson, Tyson, Vrtiska, and Wehrbein.

The five legislators who voted against passing LB 824 were Ernie Chambers, Marian Price, Ron Raikes, DiAnna Schimek and Bob Wickersham. Senators David Landis and Cap Dierks were excused.

Capitol Correspondent for 03/15/02

End of Legislative Session Will Be Bumpy

Nebraska lawmakers have rounded the turn that points them toward the final 20 days of their current 60-day session. Legislative day 40 was completed March 14, and it will be back to business on March 18. Hold on; the ride home, ending with adjournment sine die on April 19 (if everything stays on course) will be bumpy.

Several contentious issues still hold places for floor debate, but a considerable amount of the homeward-bound attention will by necessity be given to dealing with the State’s current budget imbalance. Since the Nebraska Constitution requires a balanced budget, the imbalance cannot simply be ignored.

Legislators opened the session anticipating a shortfall between $50 million and $90 million for the fiscal biennium that runs through June 30, 2003. That gap remained after adjustments of nearly $171million were made during last fall’s special session.

As of February 22, the imbalance grew considerably worse. On that day, the Nebraska Economic Forecasting Advisory Board reduced projected revenues by so much that the gap between projected revenues and planned expenditures grew to $185.7 million. What’s more, even more recently the analysis has been made that new, federal tax legislation will reduce Nebraska’s tax revenues even more.

This budget imbalance is a serious problem. The 49 citizen legislators are facing a major challenge of resolving it. In the final 20 days they will be working hard, including a good deal of interaction with Governor Mike Johanns’ administration, to find a combination of spending reductions, fund transfers and yes, even tax increases, to sufficiently balance projected revenue and planned spending.

Points of Departure

On February 28, Governor Johanns presented his plan to adjust the budget by $176.6 million. That plan becomes a starting point of sorts for the Legislature, although its Appropriations Committee has been hard at work formulating its own approach to recommend to the full body. Obviously, there will be points of departure between the Governor’s ideas, and the committee’s ideas, and ideas to be offered by individual senators as well. The processes of floor debate and negotiation, and all the actions that go with them, will determine the eventual outcome.

The Governor’s budget adjustment plan includes a three-percent across-the-board cut in appropriations for most state agencies and most programs for fiscal year 2003. That cut is in addition to a cut of five percent that impacted many of the same agencies and programs as an outcome of last fall’s special session. The Governor’s proposal also includes an increased local effort rate for K-12 schools systems, which should result in a reduced reliance on state aid; specified reductions of approximately $15 million in medical assistance (i.e. Medicaid) for low-income Nebraskans; a 50-cent per pack cigarette tax increase; and a unique proposal to recoup a portion of the tax expenditures attributable to giving certain economic development incentives to big businesses.

The proposed cuts in medical assistance, and those of a lesser extent in other public-assistance programs, are troubling. An important principle of social and economic justice, as clearly reflected in Catholic teaching, is that there must be a preferential option for the poor. While the "big picture" is highly complex, and clearly some cuts have to be made, cuts in programs that assist the poor, especially children, and especially in programs providing access to health care, should be at the bottom of any list.

There are already many barriers and inefficiencies in the Medicaid system. Some of the proposed changes appear to be minor, but some of them will increase the barriers even more. The Governor and the legislators should not ignore these effects.

Bill Needs an Amendment

On January 28, the Legislature’s Education Committee received testimony on LB 880, a bill proposing to establish the Teacher Tuition Reimbursement Program. As introduced by Senator Deb Suttle of Omaha, the program would entitle public-school teachers to tuition reimbursements for post-graduate credit hours.

At the public hearing, several educators employed by Catholic schools testified and urged the committee to eliminate the discrimination inherent in the bill, by extending its eligibility to state-licensed teachers employed by private and parochial schools. To her credit, Senator Suttle endorsed such an amendment for her bill.

Recently, the Education Committee advanced LB 880 to the full Legislature. Regrettably, it did so without the amendment that would make it fair for all certificate holders employed by state-licensed schools. An amendment to extend the program to teachers in approved and accredited non-governmental schools was presented to the committee, but it failed to win acceptance on a four-to-four vote.

Senator Suttle offered the amendment. Joining her in voting for it were Senators Chip Maxwell, Elaine Stuhr and Kermit Brashear. We commend these legislators for attempting to add fairness to this bill. On the other side, Senators Marian Price, Ron Raikes, Bob Wickersham and George Coordsen voted against the amendment that would have extended eligibility to state-certificated teachers regardless of the children they teach. Thereafter, the bill sans the amendment was advanced by the affirmative votes of Senators Suttle, Brashear, Stuhr, Price and Maxwell.

LB 880 has not been designated as a priority bill, so it probably won’t make it to the top of the agenda during the remaining 20 days of this session. It’s possible it could be proposed as an amendment to some other bill; it is more likely that it will resurface anew in next year’s session.

Teachers employed by Catholic schools, and parents of the students they educate, should take note of what has happened with LB 880. Moreover, it is appropriate and important for these Nebraskans to contact their state legislators about this proposal, urging that discrimination against private school teachers be eliminated.

Capitol Correspondent for 03/29/02

Special Session?

A scary pairing of seven-letter words was uttered on the floor of the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature last week, during debate on the serious fiscal issues the state is facing. No, it wasn’t "tax increase", of course, because neither word has seven letters, even though the combination is scary enough to some and is being heard more regularly as pressure builds.

The other scary words were "special session": as in extraordinary session of the Legislature sometime after final adjournment of the regular session; as in similar to what occurred last fall when Nebraska lawmakers convened for several days and lowered the budget deficit to what they thought at the time would leave a manageable gap.

Unfortunately, the turn of economic events has created a deficit that is considerably greater than previously identified. As a result, lawmakers are facing a stiff challenge during their current 60-day regular session, of which only 12 legislative days remain. As this week unfolded, a sufficient consensus on a package of budget cuts and revenue enhancements did not seem very close at hand. That lack of agreement, the ticking of the clock, and the tension between differing perspectives on how to do what needs to be done, are what caused at least one legislator to dare to mention the scary pair of sevens: "special session."

Theoretically it’s not out of the question that Nebraska’s legislators will have to convene again sometime after April 19. Between now and then they could get to a point at which they throw up their hands and decide to come back at a time when they can focus all attention on just these issues. (We recall that time a couple of decades ago when the 60-day Unicameral session was almost exclusively devoted to budget issues, making mid-biennium adjustments in the spending plan adopted during the preceding 90-day meeting. Now days there are just as many substantive policy issues during the 60-day session as during its "parent" the preceding year.)

Unlikely to Happen

The Governor has constitutional authority to convene a special session "on extraordinary occasions." He could exercise this authority on his own accord, or he could be required to act if at least 33 of the 49 legislators would petition him to do so.

The guess here is that this budget challenges won’t evolve into another special session. Most legislators probably don’t want one. It would keep them away from their regular lives and occupations, and it would be costly in and of itself. The guess here is that the 49 citizen lawmakers will put in the long hours necessary to accomplish their task in a responsible manner.

Besides, the 60-day limitation could be suspended if at least 40 legislators agreed to do so.

Anyone who is interested in knowing more about the state’s fiscal imbalance and the challenges now facing the Governor and lawmakers should obtain a copy of the Legislature’s weekly publication, Unicameral Update, issued on March 22. Most of it is devoted to an excellent special report on the state budget. Call the 24-hour request line, (402) 471-2877, or check the website: www.unicam.state.ne.us/update/.

Lousy Policy Takes a Hit

The Nebraska Catholic Conference has consistently opposed the "family cap" child exclusion that is a component of Nebraska’s welfare reform program. So, the Conference’s reaction was positive when a Lancaster County district judge last fall enjoined enforcement of that policy in a narrow context.

Under current Nebraska law, a child is eligible for Aid to Dependent Children financial assistance if the family meets the income and resources eligibility tests. Assuming eligibility, the cash assistance payment standard is based upon family size. However, as a result of Nebraska’s welfare "reform" policy, any child born into the recipient family after the initial 10 months of participation in the program is excluded and does not increase the cash assistance payment. That’s the "family cap" child exclusion. It’s a lousy policy. It punishes poor children by requiring that a meager subsistence stretch even farther. It attempts to use Aid to Dependent Children to push sexual behavior modification upon low-income adults. There is some evidence that it influences some women to have abortions rather than deal with even deeper poverty.

The idea behind Nebraska’s welfare reform program, Employment First, is that impoverished families should achieve "economic self sufficiency within a period of 24 months of ADC eligibility. Nonexempt adult members of applicant families enter into self-sufficiency contracts, which require them to participate in one or more of the following: education, job skills training, work experience, job search or employment.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in Lancaster County were four children whose mothers are poor and disabled. (This was a class action, meaning that the plaintiffs represented the class of all similarly situated children). Because of their disabilities, these family members are exempted from participating in Employment First. They don’t have to participate because they can’t participate, due to their disabilities.

The lawsuit became necessary because the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services subjected these plaintiffs, and the class of children they represent, to the "family cap" child exclusion. This administrative policy was implemented even though the statute enacted by the Legislature clearly ties the exclusion to "participation" in the program.

The plaintiffs argued that the "family cap" child exclusion only applies to participants in the welfare reform program and not to anyone who is not, and cannot be, a participant. In other words, mere receipt of Aid to Dependent Children on account of income and resources eligibility is not "participation" in welfare reform that triggers the "family cap" child exclusion.

The District Court judge agreed with the plaintiffs. He ruled that application of the "family cap" child exclusion to these plaintiffs and the class they represent exceeds statutory authority and violates the intent of the Legislature and the purpose of Nebraska’s welfare reform legislation. This was a just and proper ruling in our view.

The State of Nebraska has appealed this decision to the Nebraska Supreme Court. We look for the High Court to affirm the district court’s ruling on this narrow point. Then, hopefully, the policy as a whole can eventually be subjected to scrutiny.

Capitol Correspondent for 04/12/02

LB 952, Access to Adoption Records

Among a dozen or so priority bills that began this week waiting for a breakthrough on the budget dilemma so they could be considered before the session ends April 19 is LB 952. This bill proposes changes in public policy governing access to adoption records, including, in some instances, information that identifies birth parents.

LB 952 was introduced by Senator Carroll Burling of Hastings and was reported advanced to the full Legislature by the Health and Human Services Committee on February 4, following a public hearing the committee conducted on January 24. On February 14, Senator Chip Maxwell of Omaha designated LB 952 as his priority bill for the session; it has been on the list of senator priority bills awaiting first-round (General File) action since that time.

As the Committee proposes to amend the original bill, it would do several things. For one, it would give adult heirs of adopted persons a statutory right of access to all information on file at the State Bureau of Vital Statistics regarding the adoption of their parent. That would include access to their parent’s original birth certificate, which in most instances would include identifying information regarding the biological parents of that adopted person, that is, the biological grandparents of the adopted person’s heirs. The amendment defines heirs as direct biological descendants of the adopted person.

This would not be an absolute right; it could be exercised only if there was satisfactory proof that the adopted person, the adopted person’s biological parents and each spouse of the biological parents were all deceased. In the alternative, the heirs of the adopted person would have these rights to information once 100 years have passed since the birth of the adopted person.

Extending Rights to Heirs

Current Nebraska statutes deal in detail with rights of adopted persons to have access to information about their adoption, including information that identifies the biological parents. Those laws are unclear, however, about the rights of heirs of an adopted person, in other words, another generation down the line from the adopted person. This legislation would set a policy that applies, as definitively and reasonably as it can, a condition that the birth parents are deceased, and therefore any promises that might have been made to them regarding confidentiality, or any wishes they might have expressed to not be contacted, are extinguished upon death.

Interestingly, there are some who claim that the current statutes are too restrictive, or at least too cumbersome, relative to allowing adopted persons to have access to information that identifies their birth parents. Such claims show a lack of understanding and concern about the rights of all parties to adoption, most especially birthmothers who may have acted with desire not to be contacted in the future and on the basis of a pledge of confidentiality. Any such pledge must be honored.

The current Nebraska laws were carefully revised in 1988 to provide a controlled system of access that is designed to honor pledges previously made, while also reasonably assisting those who wish to know more about their birthparents. These laws also facilitate conditional access to medical information. These laws create reasonable flexibility, as well as greater accommodation for open adoptions, which are increasingly desired and implemented. Care has been taken to ensure that changes made to loosen the process were all made prospective in application, so as not to change rules that were in effect at the time of any adoption.

With respect to the aforementioned part, Senator Burling and the Health and Human Services Committee have crafted the bill in a way that does not contravene the guiding principles of the current laws.

No Public Policy Rationale

Another provision of LB 952 would repeal the statute that provides adoptive parents with authority to block their adopted child from seeking information about his or her biological parents.

Under current law, once an adopted person reaches age 21 he or she can file a request for identifying information at the Bureau of Vital Statistics. There are other conditions as well, but if his or her adoptive parent(s) at any time has filed a notice of non-consent then access to identifying information is denied.

There may be some rationale for this policy while the adopted person remains a minor, but there is no readily apparent rationale for this policy once the adopted person is an adult. In other words, why should an adult’s statutory right to search for his or her biological roots be trumped by another adult? Senator Burling and the Committee say it should not and are urging that change.

Another part of LB 952 addresses a deficiency in current Nebraska adoption law, by establishing a mandatory 48-hour waiting period following birth before a biological parent(s) can sign a relinquishment of her child for adoption. Presently, Nebraska law prescribes no such waiting period.

As a matter of sound practice, licensed adoption agencies are already subject to a minimum 48-hour waiting period before they take a relinquishment. However, private placements, those facilitated through attorneys and doctors in most instances, are not required to follow this sound practice. This part of LB 952 would make this standard a matter of law and thereby apply it to all adoptions.

While there are reasons to be reserved about LB 952, because it addresses areas of public policy and social relationships that must be approached with great sensitivity, the changes made by the bill are balanced and reasonable.

Capitol Correspondent for 04/26/02

Legislative Session Ends, Special Session May Be Needed

So, it’s over. The second regular session of the 97^th Nebraska Legislature was adjourned sine die at 3:46 p.m. last Friday, April 19. Appropriately, Senator George Coordsen of Hebron made the motion. This year will mark the end of his term of service as a state legislator, after having represented the Nebraskans of District 32 for 16 years.

It’s over, at least for now. There’s still a possibility—perhaps it’s 50-50, but we doubt it’s that high—that a special session will be necessary before the end of the year if the State’s fiscal health continues to deteriorate.

Near the end of each session, some of those who are involved with the Legislature, staff members mostly, produce a video and skit-based show to have some fun with the whole affair. It’s known as the annual Sine Die Show. This year, the theme of the presentation was "The Thrill of Victory and the Agony of the Deficit." That was appropriate.

Gap Widened, Problem Grew

Even after a budget-cutting special session late last October, the 49 citizen lawmakers who make up the 97^th Legislature entered their second regular session knowing they still faced a gap between the existing spending plan and projected revenues. Before the session was even half over, the size of the gap—and the problem, of course—had grown even larger.

The view from here is that given due consideration and respect for the legislative process, the budget dilemma was handled in a reasonably workmanlike fashion.

Now, that’s not to say that everyone is pleased with the decisions made or the solutions developed by these lawmakers. Far from it in fact; at least on the surface frustration is running at a fairly high level. Already, publicity is being garnered by a proposal to use a citizen-initiated petition drive to undo at least part of what the Legislature (as represented by 30 votes among the 49 members) did.

What did the Legislature do? As we view it, it responded to and resolved (at least temporarily) a king-sized budget dilemma, a serious fiscal imbalance, by means of a combination of budget cuts, funds transfers, tax increases and other tweaking of fiscal policies. A minimum of 30 senators—not necessarily the same groupings in all respects—was able to go along with the various components of the combination approach. That’s what the legislative process requires. Not everyone is pleased with the outcome, but they can’t fault the process.

On the budget side of the equation, any idea that this Legislature somehow skipped over or ignored cutting the budget is far off the mark. Nearly $215 million was cut from the original spending plan for the FY01-03 biennium. This constitutes approximately 52 percent of the overall solution to the budget problem.

Most state agencies and a number of state programs were subjected to across-the-board cuts of three percent for the second fiscal year (FY03) of the biennium. In most cases, that’s in addition to five percent across-the-board cuts that were made during the special session. In addition, some agencies that were spared the across-the-board cuts were subjected to two percent cuts of their own, and the University of Nebraska and state colleges systems were cut one percent.

When the Governor returned the budget bill, LB 1309, with line item vetoes totaling another $73.3 million in cuts, the Legislature responded pursuant to the process. Initially, the Appropriations Committee recommended that $64.9 million of the Governor’s vetoes be overridden, but there weren’t 30 senators agreeable to that level of overrides, so the committee went back to work and reduced its recommendation to $44 million, which received the three-fifths majority support; the tally was 30-15. This wasn’t just some casual vote-and-go-out-to-dinner exercise in goofy government; it was serious process.

Reduced State Aid

Another budget component of the combination solution was LB 898. By means of modifications in the statutory formula, it reduces state aid payable to K-12 public schools by approximately $22 million. The modifications are to stay in place for three years. This budget reduction carried a trade-off: K-12 systems that have reached the maximum property tax levy of one dollar per hundred dollars of assessed valuation will be permitted to exceed that levy in order to make up their loss in state aid.

The Governor also vetoed LB 898. The Legislature overrode this veto by a 38-5 count.

The revenue component of the combination, embodied for the most part in LB 1085, has received considerable attention. It’s the target of the would-be petition drive, as we understand. Tax increases are not popular, but enough legislators, 30 in fact, concluded that taxes had to be part of the solution.

LB 1085 itself has several components. They include an increase in the state’s sales tax rate from five to five-and-a-half percent for one year beginning October 1; an increase of two-and-a-quarter percent in the state income tax rate for one year beginning January 1, 2003; an increase in the cigarette tax from 34 cents to 64 cents per pack for two years beginning October 1; and another provision designed to hold the state harmless for about $34 million of revenue losses attributable to federal tax changes.

Another, more permanent part of the revenue package is an expansion of the sales tax base, by making some services taxable and repealing some current exemptions. The items being newly subjected to sales tax include the following: computer software training; refractory materials; selective magazine and journal subscriptions; building cleaning and maintenance, pest control and security; auto washing, waxing, towing and painting; and installing and applying taxable personal property.

The Governor vetoed LB 1085, but that veto was overridden on a vote of 30-15. While budget cuts constitute 52 percent of the total solution to the current budget deficit, these tax increases constitute 28 percent. Other fiscal policies constitute the rest.

In our view, legitimate questioning and criticism are warranted with regard to the fairness of the tax increases, especially in light of the regressive impact of the sales tax. Nevertheless, 30 legislators duly elected by Nebraska citizens decided that the combination "spreads the pain" and was sound enough to be supported. We are not convinced that reversing that decision by a petition drive is a responsible course of action at this point. Given the reality and the immediacy of the budget problem, how would that not cause chaos?

Taking into account a plethora of factors and interests and considerations and far-reaching consequences, the legislative process took on a big problem and dealt with it. What’s more, the process has not ended; it’s just taking a well-deserved hiatus.

Capitol Correspondent for 05/10/02

Election Day, Go to the Polls

Next Tuesday, May 14, is Election Day in Nebraska. Statewide it’s the 2002 Primary. Admittedly, it’s not too exciting, but don’t ignore it.

Maybe it is just the Primary, and it’s not as important as voting in November, but it is always worthwhile to be a participating citizen. Participation is vital to the process, even if it means voting for someone who is going to advance on to the General Election ballot no matter what. Consider it a practice run if nothing else, so that when November 5 rolls around it won’t be just as easy to skip that election as well.

Consistent with what seems to be more and more typical as statewide elections come and go, there are a lot of races in Nebraska this Spring that are not truly contested. Fortunately, some good competitions are shaping up for November, but not a lot of multi-candidate fields are being pared down next Tuesday.

While this is not a Presidential year, it is a gubernatorial and senatorial year. Incumbent Governor Mike Johanns and incumbent U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel are both seeking reelection. Senator Hagel moves through uncontested to November, when there will be some Democrat and Libertarian opposition. Governor Johanns is expected to easily dispatch his party opponent next Tuesday and then will be squared off against candidates from the Democrat and Nebraska parties in November. All three Republican U.S. House of Representatives incumbents—Doug Bereuter for District 1, Lee Terry for District 2 and Coach Tom Osborne for District 3—have a free ride in the partisan Primary. Bereuter and Osborne will encounter Libertarian Party opposition in the General Election, while Rep. Terry will have a formidable Democrat opponent as well as one from the Libertarian Party.

Six of 26 Will Pare Field

The State Legislature is really not a very good situation overall in terms of election intrigue this spring. Twenty-six Unicameral seats are subject to election, which includes 24 even-numbered districts and two others, 7 and 41, in which the incumbent legislators, John Synowiecki and Vicki McDonald respectively, were appointees since the last election and who, by law, must stand for election at the first opportunity.

Of the 26 elections, only six are contested, that is, having a field of three or more candidates that will be pared to two for November. Of these six, four involve an incumbent, while the other two are District 18, which is a newly constituted district, near Omaha, as a result of reapportionment, and also District 32, in which the incumbent, Senator George Coordsen, is not seeking re-lection and four candidates are campaigning to succeed him.

Eleven incumbent legislators have no opposition at all and assured of retaining their positions, unless a write-in candidacy develops for November. That leaves nine districts in which incumbents have a single opponent, the result being that both the winner and the runner-up next Tuesday will move ahead to the General Election.

One of the more intriguing of the two-candidate races is that taking place in District 40. Both candidates are incumbents so to speak. As a result of reapportionment and the greater population claim near Omaha causing a shift to the east for a new district, District 18, the current District 18 and the current District 40 were combined and reconfigured as a new District 40. Senator Doug Cunningham of Wausa, who now represents District 18, and Senator Cap Dierks, who now represents District 40, are thusly pitted against each other. The situation is really quite unfortunate, but it does mean that this Primary Election will be watched closely to see which veteran legislator takes the lead and some momentum heading toward November.

Establishing the Frontrunner

When the subject is education, one can look at the races for positions on the State Board of Education and the University of Nebraska Board of Regents. There are four State Board races, one of which has an unchallenged incumbent and the other three of which are essentially uncontested because there are just two candidates, both of whom advance. Two of the eight Board of Regents districts are subject to election this year; the terms of these nonpartisan posts are for six years. District 1 and District 2 each have an incumbent and one challenger. Next Tuesday will establish a front-runner, but the ultimate decision will be made November 5.

Probably the most interesting and significant statewide race during this Primary season is the three-way contest for State Treasurer on the Republican ticket. The incumbent is Lorelee Byrd, who was appointed less than a year ago when the last elected Treasurer, David Heineman, was appointed Lieutenant Governor when the incumbent in that office, David Maurstad left for a significant Federal post. Now Ms. Byrd has formidable Republican challenges from Brad Kuiper and Rene Dreiling. Adding to the interest and significance is the fact that there is no Democrat candidate, which means that the Republican primary IS the election for State Treasurer.

Given the small number of contested races for Congress, Governor and the Legislature, the Nebraska Catholic Conference did not carry out a candidate survey for this Primary Election. We anticipate once again following through with such a survey for the General Election. This has been a voter education project for the Conference each election year since 1974.

There’s Some Fun

Finally, to close on a loftier note, just a couple of leftovers from this year’s legislative session, fractured comments more or less: As one legislator was waxing eloquently on the floor of the Unicameral about his support for a certain amendment, he suddenly realized it was time to stop; "The longer I keep talking about this the more confused I’m getting," he admitted. On another occasion, a legislator told her colleagues that her constituents would be concerned about "holding an annual meeting every year." See, the Legislature can be fun.

Capitol Correspondent for 05/24/02

Petitions, Rating the Farm Bill and a Quiz

As we were exiting from a downtown establishment recently, a middle-aged guy zeroed in and asked if we would sign a petition. He was wearing a button that proclaimed, "Lower Property Taxes".

To be honest, our first thought was that this was the petition about repealing the Legislature’s newly enacted revenue bill, LB 1085. Quickly though, it dawned on us that that petition, which is also now in circulation, cannot have that effect. It is more likely to have the opposite effect, that is, higher property taxes, because of restricted ability of state government to distribute aid to local governments.

We asked what the petition was for and the solicitor’s response was, "To put gaming on the ballot."

We were being asked to sign the petition that initiates a proposed amendment to the Nebraska Constitution that would authorize cities, counties and villages to allow computerized video slot machines in establishments that are licensed to sell liquor for consumption on the premises.

We later reflected on a couple of aspects of that encounter. One was the general description of the proposal as "gaming." Interesting word, justified we suppose by the fact that its usage is more common than it ought to be. The initiative itself refers to the machines as "player activated electronic gaming devices." Of course.

This "gaming" is gambling. "Gaming" may mean the same thing, but it dresses up the activity and makes it more likely to generate less negative feedback. This form of verbal (do we dare say) gamesmanship isn’t new. Gaming is gambling, that’s what it is; an individual—some would say a sucker—wages his or her money against odds that favor the sponsor.

Secondly, there was the part about connecting this petition with lower property taxes. That’s a stretch in our opinion.

While the proposed amendment requires a portion of the proceeds from this gambling to be used for "property tax relief", which presumably means help in paying local government operating costs, that doesn’t guarantee lower property taxes. It might only mean that increases are less than they otherwise would be.

The property-tax system is a complex formula, one based upon assessed property values, government budgets, levies, limitations, collections and the aforementioned aid from the state. If, for example, law-enforcement and social-services costs increase as a result of new and expanded gambling, as might be expected, then "relief" might only mean keeping taxes from increasing as much as they otherwise would increase.

Judging the Farm Bill

Admittedly we haven’t studied the details of the recently reauthorized Federal farm bill—The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002—nearly enough to really bolster a limited understanding of agricultural policy. However, based on analyses from advocates/watchdogs we trust, such as the National Catholic Rural Life Conference and the Center for Rural Affairs, the multi-faceted reauthorization is a mixed bag of results. It has some praiseworthy parts, but the failure to finalize some important provisions from the Senate version drags down the final rating. Let’s give it a six on a scale of one to ten.

The major flaws, as we are learning, are the failure to enact meaningful and effective limitations on government payments and the failure of a ban on packer ownership of livestock to make it through the House-Senate conference committee.

Regarding that first flaw, the National Catholic Rural Life Conference says that most of the money goes to subsidize farm output, "a curious policy that stimulates supply, drives down prices and hurts the farmers it is meant to help…Consequently, large-scale operations will continue to pocket millions of dollars, while limiting the ability of smaller family farms to compete and survive." On the same point, the Center for Rural Affairs says this bill "provide a larger share of payments to the nation’s largest farms than any farm bill in history."

Constant Guardians

Here’s a quick civics quiz: What does Nebraska government regard as "the constant guardians of the law?" Here’s a clue: there are four of them. If you know the answer, e-mail it to us at nebrcc@alltel.net. (Also, there’s a bonus add-on: where’s the foremost place the answer can be found?) The first correct answer wins a bound volume of 26-years-worth of Capitol Correspondent columns. Just kidding! But, you might get your name in a future edition of this newspaper, along with the right answer.

Sound Selection

It was no surprise that State Senator Doug Kristensen of Minden was selected as the new chancellor of the University of Nebraska at Kearney. This is a sharp, talented, articulate individual. We wish him the best in his new position.

Senator Kristensen’s 13-and-a-half years of service in the Legislature included two (two-year) terms as Speaker. Although we believe he could have done more to control the extreme, offensive and often-irrelevant rhetoric Senator Ernie Chambers directed against the Catholic Church, his terms as Speaker were highly effective as a whole. Gosh, one year he even brought the Legislature across the finish line with a day to spare. His departure definitely leaves a leadership void in the Legislature, at least temporarily.

Capitol Correspondent for 06/07/02

Legislative Special Session in the Works?

Now that it appears to be a sure thing that sometime before summer expires Nebraska’s legislators will be called into special session to deal again with the state’s budget woes, is there some consolation in the fact that numerous other states are in a similar predicament? Misery loves company, and a sluggish economy is creating big challenges for lawmakers in numerous jurisdictions.

Sometimes the fiscal dilemma sets up a pretense for carrying out other objectives and motivations. An example of that has occurred in Wisconsin, where staunch opponents of the Milwaukee parental-choice-in-education program have turned to offering budget woes as the updated excuse for quashing the program. They suggest reducing the voucher available to impoverished families to such a low level that it is rendered meaningless.

The Wisconsin Catholic Bishops Conference has exposed and challenged the new attack on the state’s enlightened initiative to advance education by means of supporting parental choice. Recently, this analysis was published on behalf of the Conference:

"The first excuse for gutting the voucher program is that families who benefit from vouchers must share in the sacrifices everyone else is making as Wisconsin repairs its broken budget. (Sharing the pain is a general plea heard here in Nebraska as well, and soon to be reiterated, although not related specifically to educational vouchers.) Of course the voucher opponents ignore the fact that most other programs that target aid to needy families have been spared the budget axe to this point.

"They also fail to point out that no proposal to fix the budget shortfall cuts the planned increase in state aid to public schools. So rather than ask the needy children who benefit from the voucher program to share in the larger sacrifice, the program’s opponents are really trying to impose a fiscal pain on them that no other K-12 student is asked to endure."

Interesting circumstances.

Sincerity is Norm

Here in Nebraska, we cannot say that the budget problems have been used as a pretense to carry out other objectives and motivations. Without question the temptation exists, but sincerity in concern over the budget is the rule of thumb. A couple of contexts do tilt away from that norm however. One is the repeated, but unsuccessful efforts led by Senator Ernie Chambers to do away with the Postsecondary Education Award Program, which makes scholarship assistance available exclusively to income-eligible students who attend non-governmental postsecondary institutions. (This program has also been the context for some of Senator Chambers’ severest, and most irrelevant, rhetoric directed against the Catholic Church.) One cannot claim there is pretense in these efforts, however, because the Omaha legislator has made it clear he wants to eliminate the program.

The other context is one that has happened: the slicing of state-subsidized child-care assistance for low-income working families. One of the budget reductions was a drop in the income maximum from 185 to 120 percent of the federal poverty level for eligibility. This cut was probably not a pretense for any particular motivation either, but we can’t help but wonder about it because it seems so shortsighted.

Nebraska’s underlying policy on welfare reform is supposed to encourage and create opportunity for economic self-sufficiency, work rather than welfare. The framers of that policy in the mid 90’s, with some coaxing from advocates, understood that no small measure of support services was necessary to effectuate and substantiate the policy, including adequate access to quality child care. How can the program be credible and beneficial if it makes employment less manageable family-wise, thereby not only jeopardizing the well being of young children, but also encouraging a return to welfare?

Odds and Ends

Catching up on some odds and ends as temperatures go up and lawns—ours will be the best example—show distress:

With 38-0 passage of its Resolution 463, the Legislature approved naming the new multipurpose building at the Youth Rehabilitation and Treatment Center at Geneva the LaFlesche Cottage. The naming honors Susan LaFlesche Picotte, who was the first Native American woman doctor and administered medical care to Native Americans near Macy, Nebraska, and her sister, Susette LaFlesche Tibbles, a teacher, writer and advocate for Native Americans.

We learned of the contributions of these noteworthy Nebraskans a few years ago upon a visit to the Picotte Center, a historically restored medical facility in Walthill dedicated to Dr. Picotte. It features an expansive porch, underscoring Dr. Picotte’s emphasis on the importance of sunshine and fresh air.

Supportive of CARE

We have been remiss in not mentioning that Senator Chuck Hagel, to his credit, is one of 20 or so cosponsors of The Charity Aid, Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Act in the U.S. Senate. It’s S. 1924, more commonly known as the Faith-Based Initiative.

This legislation will provide crucial resources to faith-based and secular charities that serve the needy. Both the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA have endorsed CARE.

Capitol Correspondent for 06/21/02

Congress Eyes Minimum Wage, Welfare Reform

Even though there is now a lull before the storm of another "special" budget-cutting session of the Nebraska Unicameral hits in late July/early August, legislative action is still taking place; it’s happening on the Federal level. Action on several noteworthy issues is anticipated before Congress takes its August recess.

For example, sometime in July the Senate will probably take up legislation proposing to raise the federal minimum wage. Senator Ted Kennedy introduced S.2538 to do that incrementally, from $5.15 per hour to $6.65 over three years.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has been working in the Campaign for a Fair Minimum Wage, which advocates the passage of S.2538. USCCB’s policy advisors are urging grassroots lobbying action in support of the legislation, by mail, telephone and e-mail contacts with members of the Senate, including Nebraska Senators Ben Nelson and Chuck Hagel.

Catholic social teaching recognizes work as an expression of human dignity. Public policy should ensure that people who work hard every day can provide a decent life for themselves and their children. Adequate minimum wage protection is a matter of moral urgency, basic economic fairness and fundamental social justice. The pending legislation is timely and fundamentally important in that regard.

Welfare Reform Reauthorization

In 1996, Congress changed the policy approach to assisting impoverished families. The old-shoe Aid to Families with Dependent Children program was replaced with a new emphasis, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF. Now Congress is preparing to reauthorize TANF. At this point, the relevant legislation stands as H.R. 4700, the Personal Responsibility, Work and Family Promotion Act of 2002.

As with AFDC, cash assistance and support services under TANF are delivered by the states. In fact, states have more discretion in trying to make TANF work than was the case with AFDC. Even though Congress will consider and act upon reauthorization overall, important policy decisions will also continue to be formulated in state legislatures and bureaucrats’ offices.

In light of the unfolding debate, the Nebraska Catholic Conference and several other statewide and local-level organizations that are concerned about the future of low-income children and families in Nebraska collaborated on a "Statement of Principles for TANF Reauthorization". It was released to policymakers and the media in mid-May.

Flexibility and the Right Goal

The statement includes several elements relating to the future of Federal welfare-reform policy, but key points are these: Nebraska should be able to retain flexibility in running its own welfare reform program; and, the primary goal of federal welfare reform should be reducing poverty, not just reducing welfare caseloads.

Nebraska’s welfare-reform program, although it has flaws in terms of both policy specifics and implementation, is fundamentally sound in its purpose and design: to help low-income families achieve self-sufficiency. Its soundness and successes should not be thwarted by any new Federal direction and/or mandates.

The eight principles that constitute the Nebraska-based "Statement of Principles for TANF Reauthorization are as follows: Maintain the State of Nebraska’s flexibility to run its own successful welfare reform program; Make pulling children and families out of poverty a primary goal of welfare reform; Help families reach self-sufficiency; Continue Nebraska’s own Employment First job training and educational programs; Recognize and help children and families with multiple challenges to self-sufficiency; Provide benefits to legal immigrants; Focus on strengthening all families; TANF must be sufficiently funded to achieve the goals of the program.

In a future column we will examine what the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Catholic Charities USA are advocating with regard to H.R. 4700.

Gap and Defection

One issue that apparently won’t be addressed by Federal legislation anytime soon is "cloning." Recently it was revealed that negotiations over framing this issue have broken down over fundamental differences. The gap is wide between those who want to prohibit all cloning as a matter of public policy and those who attempt to draw a distinction between what they call "reproductive cloning", which they would prohibit, and cloning for purposes of research, which they would allow.

The purported ban on "reproductive cloning" would allow for the creation of human embryos by cloning techniques, and for biomedical research and experimentation on them, but would prohibit their implantation, further development and eventual birth. The result is that such a "ban" not only would permit experimentation and research on these human beings in their early stages of life, but also would require that they be destroyed.

Perhaps the biggest disappointments in this tension thus far is that Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, often a stalwart pro life lawmaker in the past, has defected from the pro life position and announced his support for the alarmingly utilitarian view that cloning should be permitted to create early-stage human subjects for experimentation and research.

No Handcuffs, Please

Finally, this recent headline was not wasted on us: "Some offices start clean-desk policies." Goodness. If the anti-clutter police ever raid our office, we’ll end up preparing future columns either from inside the slammer or on work release.

Capitol Correspondent for 07/05/02

Speaker Missing for Special Session

When the Nebraska Legislature convenes at the end of this month for another "special" budget-cutting session, it will be speaker less.

That’s not an acoustical problem; it has to do with the position of Speaker of the Legislature, which is one of the lawmaking body’s key leadership positions. The Speaker is the director, the head coach, the conductor, the chief operating officer. He or she sets the calendar and the daily agenda, and is often the presiding officer during floor sessions.

The Speaker of this 97^th Nebraska Legislature was Senator Doug Kristensen of Minden. However, he resigned shortly after the 2002 regular session ended to become Chancellor of the University of Nebraska-Kearney.

Presumably, the legislators will elect a new Speaker at the outset of their "special" session. While there is no requirement that there be a Speaker for this meeting—the responsibilities and tasks, many of which are expertly handled by veteran staff, could be assigned to those who fill other leadership positions—it makes sense that there would be one. It’s an organizational step that should make things run more smoothly, especially given the extraordinary circumstances the Legislature is confronting.

Senator Curt Bromm of Wahoo is being most prominently mentioned as the leading candidate to become Speaker. In fact, he might be the only candidate, although there is still nearly a month before someone, probably Senator George Coordsen, who is chairman of the Legislature’s Executive Board, pounds the gavel calling the 49 lawmakers to order.

It is unknown as a matter of certainty, of course, how effective Senator Bromm would be as Speaker. He has not been in that position, although he is a member of the leadership group, as chairman of the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee. However, if his colleagues elect him, that will show they are confident he will be consistently fair, but firm when necessary. That’s the test of effectiveness.

Also, this "special" session will be like an on-the-job evaluation or performance review, because whoever is elected now is likely the front runner to be Speaker when the 98^th Nebraska Legislature is organized next January.

Heavy Defects

It appears that Nebraska’s policy for imposing a penalty of death for certain crimes of first-degree murder is disintegrating under the weight of its own defects. In light of several significant court rulings, and to a lesser extent some legislative activity, it is going to be a long time before the State of Nebraska takes someone’s life in the name of justice. It is looking more likely that it will never happen again.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court ruled that juries, not judges, must decide to impose the penalty of death. Current Nebraska law has juries determine guilt or innocence, but the presiding judge, or a panel of three judges, decides whether the penalty for first-degree murder is death or imprisonment for life. That law is now unconstitutional. That follows a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling, of recent vintage, that death-penalty decisions by three-judge panels must be unanimous; some such decisions were not unanimous and were thus overturned.

The United States Supreme Court also ruled that it is cruel punishment, and therefore unconstitutional, to impose the death penalty on any convicted murderer who is determined to be mentally retarded. That ruling creates no waves in Nebraska, because state law here already prohibits execution of anyone with an IQ below 70.

Nebraska’s currently prescribed method for carrying out the death penalty is electrocution, a method that is under a thick legal cloud if not clearly unconstitutional.

In addition, the study of Nebraska’s death penalty system, commissioned by the Legislature and completed last year, identified several aspects that should be "fixed."

Forget the fixing. The death penalty is the wrong policy. The Legislature should repeal it and concentrate on making sure that the system of convicting murderers is just throughout and that the penalty for first-degree murder is imprisonment for life without possibility of parole and mandatory restitution of victims’ survivors.

Telling Blunder

A small item in the Nebraska edition of last Sunday’s Omaha World Herald piqued our attention. The two-paragraph letter under "The Public Pulse" was an Omahan’s reaction to and rebuking of the newsworthy and previously reported criticism that Rev. Lauren Ekdahl had for gubernatorial candidate Stormy Dean. That criticism was about Dean’s public signing of a petition proposing to authorize video slot machines throughout the state, against which Rev. Ekdahl is a strong opponent. If the petition is successful (and it appears it will be), then a constitutional amendment proposal for this expanded gambling will be on the General Election ballot in November.

The public-pulse letter was interesting, but what stuck out was the headline the World Herald put over it: "Priest shouldn’t lecture".

Here’s the rub, Rev. Lauren Ekdahl is a prominent Methodist minister in Lincoln. In fact, that headline is not only inaccurate and misleading, it is dripping with irony. Over the years Rev. Ekdahl has had some pretty nasty things to say publicly about positions and views of the Catholic Church , on issues such as abortion, biomedical research and homosexual "marriage". (He also has been outspoken on other issues, such as the death penalty, on which we agree with him and applaud his efforts.) We doubt Rev. Ekdahl had much, if any, appreciation for that headline.

Presumably, this was a blunder by an editorial assistant who carelessly made an assumption or jumped to a conclusion. (As a longtime priest friend would point out, not being perfect ourselves we understand how such things happen.) On one hand, it is mildly amusing. On the other hand, however, we cannot help but look upon it as another indication of the subtle bias and antagonism, or at least the immature curiosity, that many in the secular media, including the World Herald certainly, have toward all things Catholic. It was a "Rev." and it was controversial, therefore it had to be a Catholic priest and what he did was "lecture."

Capitol Correspondent for 07/19/02

Supreme Court Rules on Voucher

On June 27, the United States Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated ruling in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris. This was the conclusion of a legal test on an Ohio law that, among several options, provides tax-funded tuition vouchers for use at non-governmental schools, including religiously affiliated schools. By a 5-4 split, the Court held that the voucher program implemented in Cleveland is constitutionally sound.

Although the specific impact of this ruling is narrow, it is without question significant First Amendment jurisprudence. The Supreme Court ruled that the Cleveland voucher program does not violate the Establishment Clause; that is, it does not constitute the "establishment of religion" as prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.

This ruling has generated a great deal of reaction and interest, and will continue to do so. At the Nebraska Catholic Conference, we have received numerous inquiries about it. To help facilitate a response, your Capitol Correspondent (CC) interviewed Mitch Rowley, the Conference’s Associate Director for Education Issues.

Individuals, Not Government

CC: Mitch, what is the essence of this ruling as a matter of law?

Mitch Rowley: The Court reaffirmed its long-standing principle that a government aid program is not unconstitutional if it is neutral with respect to religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens, who, in turn, expend government aid at religiously affiliated schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice. The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients, not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of the voucher.

CC: How did the program come about in Ohio, and how does it operate?

Mitch Rowley: The Pilot Project Scholarship Program was part of school reform legislation enacted by the Ohio Legislature to address a chronically failing public school system in Cleveland. The system had failed to meet any of the 18 state standards for minimal acceptable performance. Only one in 10 ninth graders could pass a basic proficiency examination. More than two-thirds of high school students either failed or dropped out before graduation.

The program provides two basic kinds of assistance: tuition aid for students whose parents choose to send their children to another participating public or private school; and tutoring aid for children whose parents choose to continue enrolling their children in the Cleveland public schools. The tuition aid for parents choosing to enroll their child in a private school located within the boundaries of the Cleveland district was limited to $2,250. When the parents’ choice would be to enroll their child in a public school located in an adjacent suburban school district, that district would receive the $2,250 tuition voucher on top of additional per-pupil funding under the state aid formula. Another choice would be enrollment in community charter schools or magnet schools located within the Cleveland district. These schools would receive $4,518 and $7,746 per program student respectively.

CC: How did such a multi-choice, obviously neutral program evolve into such a significant case under the Establishment Clause?

Mitch Rowley: Because all surrounding suburban public school districts refused to participate in the program, even with the incentive of extra funding, the majority of eligible students enrolled in private schools in the Cleveland district, predominantly Catholic schools. This became significant, because the Supreme Court noted that the lesser value of the tuition aid obviously provided no financial incentive for parents to choose a religiously affiliated school, and therefore did not have the impermissible effect of advancing religion. The program in fact creates financial disincentives to choose a private school, because parents must co pay a portion of the school’s tuition.

CC: What is the impact of the Supreme Court’s voucher ruling in Nebraska?

Mitch Rowley: The direct and immediate impact is likely to be minimal, for a number of reasons. First, Nebraska does not currently offer any type of tax-funded K-12 scholarship program that is bolstered by the Court’s ruling. Second, since most if not all of Nebraska’s public schools would not be considered dismal failures like the Cleveland public schools, the same incentive for the Nebraska Legislature to enact a similar education reform law is not currently present. Third, Nebraska law already offers parents the option to enroll their children in adjacent public school districts, with any per-pupil state aid attributable to such students following them to the option district. Finally, the public school establishment is adamantly opposed to any tax-funded support of private-school choices and will exercise great political clout against such an idea.

CC: Does all this mean there are no benefits here from this ruling?

Mitch Rowley: Much to the contrary. The Court’s decision is important in several respects. First, it further clarifies and reinforces constitutional jurisprudence regarding state-sponsored school choice measures, and provides guidance on how such programs must be formulated and implemented to avoid constitutional barriers. Second, the decision will likely invigorate school choice efforts in many states, and allow the debate to focus on the merits of proposed school-choice programs instead of red herrings about constitutional uncertainty. Third, and perhaps most importantly, the ruling reinforces the fundamental precept that parents, not governmental entities, are in charge of directing their children’s education, and that the role of government is to be supportive, by ensuring genuine opportunity for all parents to obtain a quality education for their children in the school the parents deems best.

The Court’s decision provides encouragement to Nebraskans who desire to achieve a more comprehensive model of school choice beyond the current option enrollment. Whether that comprehensive model takes the form of tuition vouchers, education-expense credits, scholarship contribution credits, or some other mechanism, the goal remains the same: parents should be enabled to choose the school they desire for the education of their children without incurring a significant additional financial burden beyond the taxes they already pay to support K-12 education. Currently, Nebraska parents who are unable to assume the added financial burden are often stymied in their ability to exercise their fundamental parental right to direct their children’s education. Now that the Supreme Court has cleared the way, it is up to concerned and interested citizens to work with and through their legislators to achieve an educational finance system that respects and supports parents’ right to direct their children’s education.

Capitol Correspondent for 08/16/02

Cut Legislators Some Slack

Elected officials are seldom immune from criticism for the public-policy decisions they make. Seldom do their decisions please everyone. Being criticized goes with the post.

There must be some situations, however, in which elected public officials deserve some leeway, some benefit of the doubt, some understanding, some acceptance, some tolerance, or perhaps even appreciation if you will. The current fiscal problems hammering down upon the State of Nebraska strike us as an example of such a situation.

The state is facing a projected budget deficit of $233 million for the current fiscal biennium, which is now in its 14^th month. Tax receipts have been lacking, due to the economy and various factors that impact it. What’s more, the outlook for the next fiscal biennium, which will start July 1, 2003, is more of the same. At least one pundit has described this as a "historic financial crisis."

Nebraska’s 49 citizen legislators recently completed a "special session" called by Governor Johanns to address this major problem. This is the third time in the last 12 months—two special sessions and the regular, 2002 session—lawmakers and the Johanns administration have been officially engaged in negotiating through the serious budget problem. The recent focus was on protecting against anticipated cash-flow problems.

Political sniping aside, given the totality of the circumstances and the degree of difficulty, criticism of either the Legislature or the Governor or both has to be tempered on this matter. It is a tough, tough deal. Some say, simplistically, just cut the budget. That’s much easier said than done, of course, because there are obligations and many worthy claims for state resources. Others say, including us on occasion, raise more revenue; either by increasing taxes or by cutting back on the $147 million in tax breaks doled out as corporate business incentives. But that’s economically complex, politically sensitive and also easier said than done. Another idea is to tap funds segregated for particular purposes, such as the highway trust fund or the telephone universal services fund.

The Governor’s call for the current special session was made according to three notions: no tax increases; set priorities; and solve the problem. That second notion is a big challenge. As citizens we can and should express our views and provide input regarding that challenge, but in the final analysis we have to be realistic and reasonable, perhaps even temporarily a little fatalistic; most importantly, we have to trust the push and pull of the legislative process to fashion the best outcome under the circumstances.

Cutting Medicaid Eligibility

Proposed cuts in Medicaid coverage are a significant concern in the current budgetary dilemma. Medicaid is the combined federal-state program that pays health care costs for low-income individuals and families, including thousands of children.

LB 8 was introduced in the special session at the request of the Governor. It was about a $20 million component of his package of proposals to address about $120 million of the budget problem during this special session. It passed overwhelmingly, in a slightly modified form. It cuts back initial Medicaid eligibility for children in families with incomes less than 185% of the federal poverty level (known as Kids Connection) from 12 continuous months to six continuous months, with month-to-month eligibility determinations permitted thereafter; changes what has been a 20 percent income disregard in the eligibility calculation to a flat $100; cuts back from 24 months to 12 months transitional Medicaid for families that have moved off of welfare; repeals the three-decades-old, statutorily-based units-within-a-family budgeting rule, which the administration has labeled "stacking", in order to ensure that eligibility is calculated at no more than 185 percent FPL; and adds some 60 new caseworkers to the Health and Human Services System to help implement all the new eligibility mechanisms.

According to Simple Truth About LB 8, distributed by the Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, the combination of items in LB 8 as originally introduced would likely terminate health insurance coverage for nearly 15,600 children and some 13,000 working adults, a majority of whom are single mothers.

The longstanding policy of allocating income among separate "units" in multi-children households (i.e. "stacking") has been a way for low-income, working, non-elderly, non-disabled adults taking care of children—mostly single mothers—to have health care insurance through Medicaid. It has been used for determining eligibility for "medically needy caretaker relatives."

Appleseed estimated that more than 6500 single working parents making less than the federal poverty level would lose Medicaid health insurance as a result of the changes proposed by the introduced version of LB 8.

There are obvious, legitimate concerns about cutting back on Medicaid eligibility. These changes will be harmful and counterproductive, harmful to individuals losing medical care coverage, and counterproductive from a number of perspectives. First, this runs counter to the public good of having health care coverage for more citizens. Secondly, there is the reality that families trying to be self-sufficient through low-wage work, but facing cutbacks in both health care coverage and child care, will find it more beneficial to quit working and turn to ADC, which provides them with cash assistance, child care and health care. The state may actually lose fiscal ground and eventually spend more if the number of families on the "welfare rolls" increases. Related to this is the fact that cutting back on child care and medical-assistance weakens support mechanisms that were promised and intended to give Nebraska’s welfare reform initiatives—"welfare to self sufficiency"—a better opportunity to succeed. Also, another counterproductive impact is that by cutting back on eligibility, Nebraska will give up federal matching funds, perhaps as much as $100 million.

Fortunately, efforts on the part of several legislators, including Senators Chris Beutler, Nancy Thompson, Dennis Byars, Deb Suttle, Jennie Robak and John Synowiecki, had an impact on the process and helped to bring about some modest changes in LB 8, as well as concessions toward more changes when the Legislature’s regular session rolls around next January.

| Back to top