2005
Week 19
May 13, 2005

Hi

Phrase of the week: short winded. As in, "I will be short winded." May the speaker's tribe increase.

We had interesting research distributed on the floor this week, presenting the trends in the components of our total state budget.

Tax Incentives, the subject of the week: 3% of budget in 1990, 7% in 1996 and 4% in 2004. One hears a lot about a $140 million average paid on tax incentives. That is the high amount, from four years ago. This past year it was $100 million. Breaking it down, we spent $100 for each tax payer, which is not too heavy when one is thinking about future economic development. Will be $150 this next year, which is getting a bit heavy.

Other figures: Medicaid was 8% in 1990, is now 15%. That is pushing some other things out. Higher Education, university, colleges and community colleges, took 25% of the budget in 1990, now get 19%. State Aid to local schools has grown from 20% to 31% in this same time, so it is another budget-buster.

Tax incentives were the subject every day. We went until 10 o'clock one night on it. We have added a number of incentives for rural communities, have public disclosure required on every project that is benefited, and have raised the lower salary limit to qualify. We will pay the present 5% rebate on certain taxes for salaries above $32,000, down to 3% for salaries above $19,000. Pretty modest change, but at least it is better than the old plan, which was 5% on $11,000.

If we did not give tax breaks we would have the highest tax rate for businesses in the Midwest.

During the dull moments of debate I have been pondering the meanings of a slippery word: freedom. It is used often, with stained-glass voices and flags flying from both ears. However, I am not sure how many truly love it. The word is used more as a club.

Those who say they want freedom for Iraq usually do not want it for dissenters in our own country. Many Christians want it, but not for Moslems. A few are adamant that the freedom of a fetus trumps the freedom of an adult. The freedom to smoke trumps the freedom to breathe clean air. The freedom to breathe clean air trumps a business decision not to provide clean air. The freedom to drill an irrigation well trumps the freedom to take water out of the stream. Freedom to pray in schools is more important than freedom not to pray in schools. Freedom to carry a concealed weapon is more important than freedom to walk down a street without worrying about how many "good" citizens are carrying guns. Freedom to have air through the hair on a motorcycle competes with the public's freedom not to pay for lifelong injuries. Freedom not to wear a seat belt competes with our freedom to have emergency health care.

There are hierarchies of freedom on which we would be well advised to reflect. For openers, basic personal freedom trumps life itself. "Give me liberty or give me death." We send troops into Iraq, telling them they may give up life but freedom is worth that. Alongside of such realities, it is disheartening to hear shallow shouting for a personal advantage.

The non-news of the week: a court has ruled Nebraska's anti-gay marriage amendment unconstitutional. Well, Duh. It was written to be unconstitutional. It was a copy of a law already declared by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. It was a sham managed by a few unprincipled profiteers.

I understand when people speak out against "gay marriage." It is a free country. See above. But I grind my teeth about those who use persons with these convictions to build a self-serving base and collect more money. In this case they planned for two campaigns. I remember quotes from these slimey types, who, when asked why they did not go for reasonable wording, said "our people" will be just as upset again when it is declared outside the law and will then build up antagonism toward judges for "overriding the will of the people."

Do remember that "gay marriage" was illegal in Nebraska before the amendment. This was just to stir fears. The first sentence defines marriage as between a man and a woman. No public problem there. I agree and most courts agree. I put "gay marriage" in quotes because I feel it is confusing language. Words have meaning. We know what marriage is, so will have to come up with another word for a same-sex contract. I recognize there is room for discussion there. Great!

The second sentence declares, among other things, that domestic partnerships are not valid under law. Let's see. That would invalidate the contract a father and son draw up on how they are going to manage their farm. Or prohibit a mother and daughter from a shared agreement on their Living Wills and how they want to be cared for in illness. Or block a gay couple with joint home ownership from going to court to protect their property. The judge said it would place restrictions on roommates, tenants, foster care parents and shared living arrangements (as a woman caring for her Aunt).

Our legislature tried to pass a statute that would enable two persons of the same sex to contract with each other to make hospital decisions if one were incapacitated. Our Attorney General said the gay amendment prohibited even discussing the proposal in the legislature. (That is the same Attorney General who says we must object to the court's ruling. Help!)

The judge said this amendment amounts to a punishment of a class of citizens. "It goes so far beyond defining marriage that the court can only conclude that the intent and purpose of the amendment is based on animus (feeling of animosity) against this class."

Well, I have some animus against those self-appointed organizers who are using good people to stir up false fears, get signatures, collect funds and promote the idea that the world is about to come to an end. Send more money!

Send prayers and good will,

Lowen