2007
Week 9
March 3, 2007

Hi

A must read: Anna Quindlen, columnist on the last page of the current “Newsweek,” reports being asked a question by a hardworking and pious woman: “Who is Anna Nicole Smith?” No good answer! She goes on to compare small town gossip, where you know the persons but not much about them, to the current peeping-Tom trade, where you do not know the persons but know everything about them. In our villages, “Britney Spears would have left her babies at home to bounce around the bars, and it would have been Topic A at card games and knitting circles.......You would have heard the embalming of Anna Nicole's body was complete from the funeral director, at the Elks Club.”

“Most of the people doing the talking would have had actual knowledge of the women involved and from time to time they would actually have had to see them on the street, or in the store, or at church. Eye contact has always had a dampening effect on trash talk.”

“.....This way it's almost like they're not people at all...... at least we used to gossip about people we actually knew. Knowing, of course, is what is supposed to set humans apart from animals......”

Quindlen's thoughts struck a chord with me because of the dilemma of the week. Of the decade, actually. Our caring about persons across town from us is reduced to dollar signs. In Appropriations, we know all about them, but we do not know them. This week, several real live persons came to our health hearings and we sat blinking at their desperate situation. Good people, hard working, who should be coming out on top but who had illness or a sickly baby which put them so far in debt they cannot imagine the top. Our health systems are overwhelmed with persons we will never meet.

I have been blessed with a curiosity about history, so I know how we got here. We started Nebraska on the prairie, where the sick were sent back to where they came from. We gave them food for the journey. In the next phase, good people of town, mostly through churches, collected food and clothing for the desperate among us. Families gave up all their savings and assets in the search for healing and care for Grandma or Grandson.

That soon became too much for volunteers to carry, and some people had no family, so churches lobbied the County Board to establish Poor Farms, where nearly helpless folks could have a roof, a well, clean air, and a garden. Next, we agreed that seriously ill persons cannot be left to die in their homes, so churches established hospitals where any person may enter. To this day, the county pays the expenses of desperately ill persons who have no money. That was the first 40 years of Nebraska.

During the last 40 years, we have agreed that every child should be educated, should have health care, and should not be abused but be in a safe home. We will protect abused persons of any age. We will provide nursing home care for the elderly who do not have sufficient resources. A developmentally disabled baby belongs to all of us, not just to those two parents and their family. We have agree to all that, in the last 40 years. I do not judge it, but it is very expensive when done even in the most efficient manner, with platoons of volunteers and over 200 church and synagog sponsored agencies in Omaha alone providing the needed services at a greatly discounted rate.

We have also agreed that young people with the smarts and attitude should be educated past high school and that we will help them. But now we have shifted gears, from basic human needs to economic development. We have to enlist every trained adult we can, to develop a career in Nebraska -- if we are to have a healthy future. It is still $$$.

The dilemma of the week is we had over 20 citizens come to our hearings to state where we are missing the mark in prevention, in education, in caring for the desperate. Most of them had excellent ideas and centered on money in order to get our attention. They had their evidence, track record, and future plans well in hand. One group would, with $1 million, return $3 million in savings three years from now, and keep that up. On the high end of investment, one group will return ten for one. They will provide dental care, with inexpensive coating for teeth of first graders, which will save millions in health care. They will recruit and train more volunteers from the community to care for mentally ill in their homes rather than in institutions. They will help prevent grade schoolers from drifting into drug use, which is one of our biggest gaps in public policy (and for which we have few programs). They will start drug treatment in prisons, where about 55% are mentally ill. (Our biggest mental health institution in Nebraska is our prisons.) This program would be near the beginning of the sentence, which would help successful ones to qualify for parole and get back to our communities and to jobs. Dollars coming in!

They brought solid plans by which we could save millions in guaranteed future tax costs. But we do not have the front end money. I am not talking about programs by starry-eyed idealists. These are proven programs in other states, done by our neighbors with a good track record. However, we are told the public generally is saying, “We do not want that. We would rather have an income tax cut.” I am not angry with this message. We would be helped with tax cuts. The public simply does not know the facts of future costs. But no business person would turn away from these kind of investments.

You are patient with my painful thoughts and I do thank you. Again, I will be glad enough to turn the agony of this dilemma over to the next in line. Clearly, I am optimistic. We have made some great gains. People say to me ”Let's deal with our problems” far more than they say to cut taxes. However, so far we are not doing all that is realistic to protect our future.

Hang in there

Lowen