2006
Week 8
February 24, 2006

Hi

The big news in the nation was even bigger news in Nebraska: eight wonderful workers/one line comics, who each won $22.1 million. [Introduce yourselves.] "I happy." "I have been retired for four days." "Reality? I don't particularly like water or flying." [Earlier conversation had suggested buying an island or plane.]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch I am on Appropriations and they added to our $$$ count this week. Each of them is ‘giving’ us $1.1 million in withholding in 2006 - total $8.8 m. - and depending on their personal situation will join to give us a little over $3 m. next year. We welcome the total of $12 million and since we are short I can guarantee it will be well used. The Forecast Board included these figures as they said we could put an extra $20 m. in reserves this year, with an added $27 m. to use in the next fiscal year.

Since our church and all qualified charities are always open to wise gifts, I checked with my tax consultant to see if the lump sum allowance on short form would be too high to invite donations. She informed me that I evidently have not had a million in income recently, or I would have known that short form does not apply at that level. The feds are still messing with regs related to the hurricane, but giving continues to provide a deduction for them -- and for us commoners.

Some added thoughts on last week's subject of campaign limits/excesses.

A real nuisance to campaigns is outside groups who try to look like natives as they seek to control Nebraska results. One group asks all candidates to sign a tax pledge: absolutely no raised taxes. It is bogus and I am proud that only two Nebraskans signed on last time. I have no intention of raising taxes. We try every way we can to control them and have had some success this year in reducing property taxes. But to pledge you will spend no money on your house when you do not know what may happen to the roof is foolish indeed. However, shallow minds like "I am against taxes."

Do I want accurate measure at the gas pump or meat market? That requires taxes. Clean air and water fit to drink? Streets to share around town? The same protocol at every airport around the world? Regulated giant corporations? Regulated local liquor stores? The neighborhood kids to have an education? A university that will train and keep some students in Nebraska? A strategy for a flu epidemic? Drug and crime watchdogs? Stop signs? It's all taxes. I am so grateful for those who manage $$$ carefully.

Another group from outside Nebraska has been obnoxious in promoting term limits. We received threatening letters when the news reported we are considering putting this up to a vote of the people again. Very intimidating language. Going to hang us out to dry if we let our citizens vote on something these clowns do not like. Not the way we Nebraskans talk with each other. (Well, talk radio maybe.) One does wonder why outsiders care so much. Spirit of love at work?

Outsiders invariably run attack campaigns, which invariably have a truth deficit. On all levels, negative campaigning is a sign of a close race. The ones I have seen have become unethical. What you say about someone else does not have to be honest and candidates on the stump are not really subject to libel or slander. In summary, I hope we all realize we do not buy in to the content of a negative campaign without careful verification.

Earmarks are a scandal in Washington. A member of congress can slip a note to the right person and get a few million dollars added to the body of a bill in ‘the middle of the night’ for a pet project. Under cover of darkness, for sure. An ‘earmark’ appropriates $$$ for a specific project. No review, no announcement, no discussion (except among the staff in the office of the chair) and no motions on the floor.

Worse, this is used to buy votes. One of the Administration bills was not going well this fall and the promoters simply asked the reluctant voters how much it would take. Some got earmarks for $50 million. More typically, each who is voting for the bill being attached will be asked to send a note requesting $10 million. One reported a phone call raising the figure to $15 million. Adds up to real money. President Reagan vetoed an important bill because it had $200 million of earmarks in the cracks. He said that was out of line. President Bush signed a bill this year with nearly one billion in earmarks. All observers agree the scheme has rapidly become flagrant abuse of government spending.

Some of the projects are good. Our Med School has benefited. But much of it is wasting money on low priorities. The part that is without conscience is that it is not reviewed by the committee or the body. One congressman said he objects to it but does it because it would not be right to pass up the fair share available to his district.

So what is like that in Nebraska? Nothing. Every amendment is reviewed and voted on in committee. It is in front of God and everybody on the floor. If someone tried to add a personal project in one of our committees, or directly on the floor, they would be laughed out of order.

On the federal level, the devious means for getting a big donation to campaign funds from sponsors of a project is obvious. In the legislature, if a senator could be shown to have a key role in blocking a new tax on farmers he would undoubtedly receive more donations for his next campaign. However, work and influence on the floor is not comparable to an earmark in the middle of the night.

A few respondents have been curious about leftover campaign $$$. Usually this is not a lot of money and it is dispersed to other campaigns. A state senator may not give over $1,000 per year, combined, to candidates running for federal offices, which includes congress. But funds can be given to help state races, or to the party, or to tax exempt charities. The accounting is very strict. One must get the balance to zero before filing final form. No personal use is allowed.

Major offices of course draw larger sums. A successful candidate can be left with millions in the bank. Larger donors watch the dispersal and can get grumpy with the wrong slots for "their" money. Money may be returned to the donor. At the end of the instructions is a strange open catchall: (may be given) ... ‘to any lawful purpose’ ... (!)

Lawfully yours,

Lowen