2005
Week 8
February 26, 2005

Hi

New set of initials in Nebraska: TERREX. Terrorist exercise, which of course is one more thing we are supposed to fund.

The big news this week is the meeting of the Economic Forecast Board. Board members discuss the state economy and come up with a revenue figure that the legislature must use in budgeting. They caused a few relieved smiles as they forecast that revenue will be over their last projection. The new total increase over the previous year is 6.2% for this year, 4.8% for the year starting in July, and 4.0% for the following year.

You can see that this is not buying a lot of blue sky in the future, so we can assume these are fairly safe figures. It means a total of $150 million over past projections for the current year, $110 m. for next year and $90 m. for the following. The current year's will be used to pay the $145 m. low level waste judgment. Our tentative budget needs about $30 m. each of the other two years and of course we have used our cash reserves to get through the crisis, so these must be restored. In short, no real extra money, but we will be able to do what is necessary to do. Which is new.

Agencies, school districts, cities, etc., will not understand that last paragraph and will see "millions of dollars" floating around, looking for a home. Hopefully the enthusiastic inquirers will buy me a cup of coffee before I tell them "Not."

For a change of pace, I will muse about subjects which are real but quite small in the scheme of things -- but which generate all kinds of passion. Shall motorists be required to wear seat belts? Can motorcycle riders be exempted from having to wear helmets? Can citizens wear a concealed weapon? Shall grade schools which have a proud history but now have few or no students be closed? These do not bring you to the end of the world, nor can you see it from here. I do not put any of them down, as they are real questions that affect some people's lives. But one wonders how they can generate so much heat.

The one this week was discrimination against gays. Important subject, certainly, but as I listened to a long line of testifiers I could not help but wonder, "Why does this continue to be such a big deal? Why do we talk about it this much?"

We are created with all sorts of physical and mental conditions and we generally get along with them. I wanted to be a star basketball player, but after I read the smiles of the coaches and other team members I got over it. I would love to be an artist, but even my stick figures put an overload on the imagination.

Someone is handed a gay body/voice/wiring and we can rationally observe that this guy really has no interest in dating girls. However, some go ballistic with no more than that, and their imaginations, to go on. One testifier this week said that every gay person is a predator on children or is trying to recruit others as predators. Hello, earth? Follow-up questions indicated he probably had never met one.

There is good humor in it all. A pastor-type said that gays are a huge problem in our society. Then, unbelievably, he said he would support this bill if discrimination against gays presented a massive problem, but there are so few that we should not bother.

Reverend Chambers (I love to call him Revenuer) charged to the questions. Brother Ernie asked him, since he was a pastor, if he remembered how many it took for Jesus' promise to be in the midst of them? Quiet answer: two or three. What, cries out a shocked Ernie, does there not have to be a multitude for Jesus to pay attention?

The next is sheer scriptural genius, given the theology of this pastor. Ernie asked him how many it would take for Jesus to be willing to be stretched out on the cross and crucified? Would Jesus willingly die for one or two? Or did it have to be a multitude?

I was sitting there thinking that this is fun and this dude brought it on himself. But why does the whole process of legislation have to grind to a stop to let someone's imagination churn up dust? For individual rights, yes. That is a big deal. But for the rehash of feelings of someone who despises another person he has never met..... I do wonder how much longer this has to go on.

A fellow with highfalutin scientific-sounding language wrote to one paper this week to say there is no scientific basis for assuming that water in the ground relates to water in the stream. O my. We in Nebraska recently spent $35 million [!] to argue that question with Kansas, complete with a bevy of researchers and consultants. In a hearing this week, I asked one of our team if there is even flimsy merit in what this man says, or is there a school of thought which would support him? "None."

So watch your highfalutin language, and I will try to do the same.

Lowen