Could Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan really work?
■ No, says a former Treasury official, calling the proposal “a distributional monstrosity.”T RIBUNE W ASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON — Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan sounds simple enough: Eliminate the existing tax code and replace it with a 9 percent tax on personal income, a 9 percent business tax and a 9 percent national sales tax.But could it work?That question has been posed to tax policy experts since Cain unveiled the plan last month. It was a topic that dominated Tuesday’s debate in New Hampshire.Cain insists that the plan would immediately jump-start the economy by putting more money into people’s pockets.But Bruce Bartlett, a Treasury Department official under President George H.W. Bush who studied Cain’s plan and wrote an analysis Tuesday for the New York Times, said Cain “offers no evidence for this assertion; it is simply put forward as self-evident.” Bartlett called the plan “a distributional monstrosity.”He wrote: “The poor would pay more while the rich would have their taxes cut, with no guarantee that economic growth will increase and a good reason to believe that the budget deficit will increase.”That’s because two of Cain’s three 9s — the income tax and a national sales tax — would disproportionately affect the 47 percent of tax filers who don’t pay any federal income tax under the current system — many of whom are elderly or poor.The extra money paid by those people would in effect subsidize the huge tax cut for wealthier Americans who currently pay as much as 35 percent in federal income tax.As for the middle class, the 9 percent sales tax might discourage purchases on nonessential items. Or, as Cain has suggested, it might encourage them to buy used goods instead, which he would exempt from the tax.There would be no exemption proposed for necessities like groceries. That means poor people who can afford to spend only on basic needs would see their cost of living increase 9 percent.Cain has argued that wage earners would save considerably because his plan would abolish the payroll taxes that pay for Social Security and Medicare.“You have to start with the biggest tax cut a lot of Americans pay, which is the payroll tax, 15.3 percent,” the former Godfather’s Pizza CEO said, defending his plan at the Tuesday debate. “That goes to 9 percent. That is a 6-percentage-point difference.“And the prices will not go up. So they have got a 6 percentage point difference to apply to the national sales tax piece of that.”But what Cain did not mention is that employers currently pay half the payroll tax. Under Cain’s plan, employers would save their half of payroll taxes while workers would pay a higher percentage in the form of income tax.The plan could also discourage hiring and wage increases. Companies would be allowed to deduct purchases they made from other businesses before calculating how much of the company’s revenue would be subject to the tax. But Cain’s plan would provide no such deduction for wages.“If you’re the shareholder, you’re going to get a huge increase in your dividends,” Bartlett said Wednesday in an interview. “But if you’re a worker, sounds to me like he’s saying I get a deduction for buying a machine to replace a worker, but I get no deduction for hiring a worker.”Plus, he said, it would encourage employers to find new, taxfree ways to pay employees.“What’s to stop a company from paying its employees by leasing their cars and homes for them and even buying their food and clothing?” Bartlett wrote. “That would reduce (the employer’s) taxable revenue.”The plan also faces political challenges. At a time when the Republican Party is especially negative toward any expansion of the government’s reach, Cain’s proposal would create a whole new category of federal tax.The U.S. Treasury took in about $2.2 trillion last year, most of it from four main categories of federal taxes: income taxes paid by individuals and corporations; taxes on wages; taxes on inheritances; and excise taxes on goods such as alcohol and tobacco.A Bloomberg News analysis estimated that Cain’s plan would have been $200 billion short had it been in place in 2010. The plan would have raised $922.1 billion from the national sales tax, $912.7 billion from the individual income tax and $127.7 billion from the business tax, according to the Bloomberg analysis.Cain’s campaign on Wednesday provided Bloomberg’s Steven Sloan with an analysis done by Fiscal Associates Inc. It suggested that the plan would collect as much money as is raised under the current system.
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Pipeline News
KEYSTONE XL PIPELINE Legislators to sit down with TransCanada■ A majority of state senators are in favor of a special session on the issue, Speaker Mike Flood says.B Y MARTHA STODDARD AND JOE DUGGAN WORLD-HERALD BUREAU LINCOLN — Speaker of the Legislature Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk announced Wednesday that key state lawmakers will meet next week with a top Trans-Canada official.Flood, an accomplished negotiator, said he wants to see whether the two groups can find common ground concerning the route of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline.But he also said it appears a majority of state senators favor calling a special session to enact legislation regulating the pipeline.TransCanada’s proposal to build the pipeline across Nebraska’s environmentally sensitive Sand Hills has prompted a groundswell of opposition in the state and across the country.The Sand Hills overlie the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies the bulk of Nebraska’s drinking and irrigation water.Flood’s announcement comes as the battle over the pipeline grows more heated.Three environmental groups sued the federal government Wednesday for allowing work to start before the project has reSee Pipeline: Page 2
Article Continued Below
See PIPELINE on Page B02
Pipeline: Three environmental groups file lawsuitContinued from Page 1 ceived final approval. The groups named the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. State Department in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Omaha. The lawsuit claims that the agencies have allowed TransCanada, the project sponsor, to mow a pathway for the pipeline before the State Department has given final authorization. Such work, when completed before a project’s approval, violates the National Environmental Policy Act, said Noah Greenwald, a staff member of the Center for Biological Diversity. “For that company to have already begun work on the route makes a mockery of the public process,” he said, noting the two public hearings the State Department hosted in Nebraska just last week. The center and Friends of the Earth, both national organizations, joined with the Western Nebraska Resources Council to file the legal challenge. They have asked for a declaratory judgment calling the site preparation work illegal and seeking an injunction to stop it. State Department officials are expected to decide before the end of the year about issuing a permit for the 1,700-mile pipeline, which would carry tar-sand oil from western Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. With the federal review nearing an end, Flood said he understands that time is “of the essence” for action by the state Legislature. But he wants to make sure lawmakers act thoughtfully and have done their homework first. That includes looking into questions about the state’s legal authority regarding an international project and about constitutional limits on state regulation. It also includes talking with constituents to find out what Nebraskans want. “I think this process will unfold itself in the next couple of weeks,” Flood said. He took issue with those, including Gov. Dave Heineman, who have accused the Legislature of a lack of leadership on the pipeline issue. “No one in this branch of government is hiding,” Flood said. “As speaker, I am here to assure the citizens of Nebraska: Your Legislature will be responsible and will act responsibly.” Next Tuesday’s meeting will be a key milestone along the way. Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president of energy and oil pipelines, has agreed to attend on the company’s behalf, Flood said. Flood asked three senators to attend: Sen. Chris Langemeier of Schuyler, the Natural Resources Committee chairman; Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton, who has drafted legislation that could become the starting point for a special session; and Sen. Kate Sullivan of Cedar Rapids, who introduced the lone piece of pipeline legislation passed during the regular legislative session. Sullivan’s bill requires crudeoil pipeline companies to reclaim any land disturbed by construction or operation of such a project during its lifetime. Shawn Howard, a TransCanada spokesman, said the company was happy to participate in the meeting. “We look forward to presenting our views and, also, to listen to what others have to say,” he said, while noting that the pipeline route was chosen “based on facts, careful environmental studies and very deliberate considerations.” In commenting on the lawsuit, Howard said TransCanada has not started construction, as the plaintiffs allege. He said the company mowed the grass as part of its commitment to protecting the federally and state endangered American burying beetle. Company officials have said TransCanada spent hundreds of thousands of dollars moving the beetles, which inhabit a limited area that falls on the pipeline’s path. Mowing the roughly 100-foot-wide path through the grass-covered dunes was done to discourage the beetles from returning to the habitat where they were trapped and moved. “We will put our position on this matter to the court in Nebraska,” Howard said. Spokesmen for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department said Wednesday that they were reviewing the complaint and were not ready to comment. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they learned about the site work from a recent World-Herald article revealing that TransCanada hired biologists to capture and relocate the burying beetles. A TransCanada official told The World-Herald the early work was done to avoid a two-year delay in the project. “It was not being done for the benefit of the environment. It was being done for the benefit of the corporation,” said Amy Atwood, a lawyer from Portland, Ore., who helped prepare the lawsuit. The company has said that the pipeline would be the safest ever built and that moving the route would needlessly delay the project. The environmental groups said the early site preparation work is just another sign the State Department intends to grant a permit for the project. They have called upon the president to make the final decision instead
Article Continued Below
See PIPELINE on Page B02
Pipeline: Three environmental groups file lawsuitContinued from Page 1 ceived final approval. The groups named the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. State Department in a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Omaha. The lawsuit claims that the agencies have allowed TransCanada, the project sponsor, to mow a pathway for the pipeline before the State Department has given final authorization. Such work, when completed before a project’s approval, violates the National Environmental Policy Act, said Noah Greenwald, a staff member of the Center for Biological Diversity. “For that company to have already begun work on the route makes a mockery of the public process,” he said, noting the two public hearings the State Department hosted in Nebraska just last week. The center and Friends of the Earth, both national organizations, joined with the Western Nebraska Resources Council to file the legal challenge. They have asked for a declaratory judgment calling the site preparation work illegal and seeking an injunction to stop it. State Department officials are expected to decide before the end of the year about issuing a permit for the 1,700-mile pipeline, which would carry tar-sand oil from western Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast of Texas. With the federal review nearing an end, Flood said he understands that time is “of the essence” for action by the state Legislature. But he wants to make sure lawmakers act thoughtfully and have done their homework first. That includes looking into questions about the state’s legal authority regarding an international project and about constitutional limits on state regulation. It also includes talking with constituents to find out what Nebraskans want. “I think this process will unfold itself in the next couple of weeks,” Flood said. He took issue with those, including Gov. Dave Heineman, who have accused the Legislature of a lack of leadership on the pipeline issue. “No one in this branch of government is hiding,” Flood said. “As speaker, I am here to assure the citizens of Nebraska: Your Legislature will be responsible and will act responsibly.” Next Tuesday’s meeting will be a key milestone along the way. Alex Pourbaix, TransCanada’s president of energy and oil pipelines, has agreed to attend on the company’s behalf, Flood said. Flood asked three senators to attend: Sen. Chris Langemeier of Schuyler, the Natural Resources Committee chairman; Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton, who has drafted legislation that could become the starting point for a special session; and Sen. Kate Sullivan of Cedar Rapids, who introduced the lone piece of pipeline legislation passed during the regular legislative session. Sullivan’s bill requires crudeoil pipeline companies to reclaim any land disturbed by construction or operation of such a project during its lifetime. Shawn Howard, a TransCanada spokesman, said the company was happy to participate in the meeting. “We look forward to presenting our views and, also, to listen to what others have to say,” he said, while noting that the pipeline route was chosen “based on facts, careful environmental studies and very deliberate considerations.” In commenting on the lawsuit, Howard said TransCanada has not started construction, as the plaintiffs allege. He said the company mowed the grass as part of its commitment to protecting the federally and state endangered American burying beetle. Company officials have said TransCanada spent hundreds of thousands of dollars moving the beetles, which inhabit a limited area that falls on the pipeline’s path. Mowing the roughly 100-foot-wide path through the grass-covered dunes was done to discourage the beetles from returning to the habitat where they were trapped and moved. “We will put our position on this matter to the court in Nebraska,” Howard said. Spokesmen for the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State Department said Wednesday that they were reviewing the complaint and were not ready to comment. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit said they learned about the site work from a recent World-Herald article revealing that TransCanada hired biologists to capture and relocate the burying beetles. A TransCanada official told The World-Herald the early work was done to avoid a two-year delay in the project. “It was not being done for the benefit of the environment. It was being done for the benefit of the corporation,” said Amy Atwood, a lawyer from Portland, Ore., who helped prepare the lawsuit. The company has said that the pipeline would be the safest ever built and that moving the route would needlessly delay the project. The environmental groups said the early site preparation work is just another sign the State Department intends to grant a permit for the project. They have called upon the president to make the final decision instead
Middle Eastern Wars
WASHINGTON (AP) — One in every three U.S. veterans of the post-9/11 military believes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were not worth fighting, and a majority think that after 10 years of combat America should be focusing less on foreign affairs and more on its own problems, according to an opinion survey released Wednesday.The findings highlight a dilemma for the Obama administration and Congress as they struggle to shrink the government’s huge budget deficits and reconsider defense priorities while trying to keep public support for remaining involved in Iraq and Afghanistan for the longer term.Nearly 4,500 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and about 1,700 in Afghanistan. Combined war costs since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks have topped $1 trillion.The poll results presented by the Pew Research Center portray post-9/11 veterans as proud of their work, scarred by warfare and convinced that the public has little understanding of the problems that wartime service has created for military members and their families.The survey also showed that post-9/11 veterans are more likely than Americans as a whole to call themselves Republicans and to disapprove of President Barack Obama’s performance as commander in chief. They also are more likely than earlier generations of veterans to have no religious affiliation.The Pew Research Center, a nonpartisan organization that studies attitudes and trends, called the study the first of its kind.The results were based on two surveys conducted between late July and mid-September. One polled 1,853 veterans, including 712 who had served in the military after 9/11 but are no longer on active duty. Of the 712 post-9/11 veterans, 336 served in Iraq or Afghanistan. The other survey polled 2,003 adults who had not served in the military.Asked for a single word to describe their experiences, the war veterans offered a mixed picture: “rewarding,” “nightmare,” “eye-opening,” “lousy.”There are about 98,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, where the conflict began with a U.S.-led invasion on Oct. 7, 2001.The Pew survey found that veterans are ambivalent about the net value of the wars, although they generally were more positive about Afghanistan, which has been a more protracted but less deadly conflict for U.S. forces. One-third of post-9/11 veterans said neither war was worth the sacrifices; that was the view of 45 percent in the separate poll of members of the public.Fifty percent of veterans said Afghanistan was worth it, whereas the poll of civilians put it at 41 percent.Among veterans, 44 percent said Iraq was worth it. That compares with 36 percent in the poll of civilians.Pew said its survey results found “isolationist inclinations” among post-9/11 war veterans. About 60 percent said the United States should concentrate on problems at home. In a Pew survey conducted earlier this year, a similar share of the public agreed.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Pipeline bill
Bill would require state OK of pipeline routes Sen. Dubas hopes proposal will persuade colleagues to support special session
B Y JOE DUGGAN WORLD-HERALD BUREAU LINCOLN — Oil pipeline routes in Nebraska would require state approval under a proposed bill intended to rally support for a special legislative session on the controversial Keystone XL project.Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton emailed a copy of the Oil Pipeline Siting Act to her legislative colleagues Monday and planned to follow up this week with phone calls to press for a special session.“We have a very short timeline here,” she said. “If we don’t do something before the end of the year, there’s not much chance we’ll have any ability to interact with this particular project.”She referred to the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would carry 700,000 barrels of oil daily from the tar-sand region of western Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. She and other elected officials, including Gov. Dave Heineman, want the project rerouted to prevent possible contamination of groundwater supplies beneath the Nebraska Sand Hills.Because the project crosses an international border, the U.S. State Department will decide whether the pipeline is in the national interest. Department officials have said they intend to make a decision by the end of the year.TransCanada, the project’s sponsor, insists that the proposed route is the most cost-efficient of several paths that were considered. Spokesmen say the comSee Pipeline: Page 2 CONTINUING COVERAGE >> Sen. Johanns says emails show that the State Department has already decided to approve the pipeline. Page 2A >> Read more at Omaha.com/ topics/pipeline
Article Continued Below
See PIPELINE on Page A02
Pipeline: Senator says she thinks colleagues may be open to sessionContinued from Page 1 pany has committed to make the Keystone XL the safest pipeline ever built. The Dubas bill would require TransCanada and other large pipeline builders to submit applications to the Nebraska Public Service Commission, which would have eight months to review the route and make a decision. Approval would give the applicant the power to use eminent domain to obtain right of way for the pipeline. Other provisions of the bill would require recommendations from eight other state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Natural Resources, the Game and Parks Commission and the Department of Revenue. The Public Service Commission also would be required to hold public hearings on proposed pipelines. The $517,000 annual cost of the bill would be covered by fees to pipeline applicants and would not require taxpayer dollars, Dubas said. The bill would require pipeline applicants to identify “unusually sensitive groundwater areas” near proposed routes. In addition, they would have to report the number of jobs anticipated for construction and operation of the pipeline, with an estimate of how many employees would come from outside the state. Currently, two underground oil pipelines cross the state: One runs through eastern Nebraska and another follows a stretch of the Platte River. Neither pipeline crosses the Sand Hills. Sen. Ken Haar of Malcolm, who worked with Dubas on the bill, said it gives Nebraska a way to protect its unique interests when a project is national in scope. Haar also has been working to convene a special session through a poll of legislators, which has never been done. It would require 33 of 49 lawmakers to agree to the special session. An informal poll of 48 state senators reached last week by The World-Herald found seven in support of a special session, nine against and 32 undecided. Nearly all the undecided senators said they wanted to see a bill. “It gives me hope that senators are keeping an open mind and waiting for something to form an opinion about,” Dubas said. While Dubas, Haar and other senators will work the phones this week, it’s safe to say Trans-Canada will, too — the company has hired Walt Radcliffe, one of Nebraska’s most influential lobbyists, to fend off a special session. Although the governor could call the special session himself, he has been unwilling to do so. Instead, he has encouraged Nebraskans who want the pipeline rerouted to make their views known to the U.S. State Department. State Department hearings last week in Lincoln and Atkinson drew hundreds of comments from supporters and opponents. In an interview Monday with The World-Herald, Heineman said he must be convinced that Dubas has the votes to pass the bill before he calls lawmakers back to the State Capitol. The governor also acknowledged that he and other state leaders should have reacted much sooner to the pipeline. Heineman did not take a firm stance against the Sand Hills route until several weeks ago. “We’re very late to this game. I don’t think there is any question Nebraska should have done something years before,” he said. The governor also said Monday that he still questions whether Nebraska has the authority to pre-empt the State Department, which already has determined that the proposed route is appropriate. For that reason, he argued that pressure needs to be applied on President Barack Obama. Dubas said Monday that she believes the state has clear constitutional authority to decide the pipeline’s route. That’s a change from the last legislative session, when she held the view that pipeline siting authority rested solely with the federal government. “It just started to bubble up to the surface that maybe states have more rights than we were led to believe,” she said. “It became more clear to me that we did have this authority.”
B Y JOE DUGGAN WORLD-HERALD BUREAU LINCOLN — Oil pipeline routes in Nebraska would require state approval under a proposed bill intended to rally support for a special legislative session on the controversial Keystone XL project.Sen. Annette Dubas of Fullerton emailed a copy of the Oil Pipeline Siting Act to her legislative colleagues Monday and planned to follow up this week with phone calls to press for a special session.“We have a very short timeline here,” she said. “If we don’t do something before the end of the year, there’s not much chance we’ll have any ability to interact with this particular project.”She referred to the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, which would carry 700,000 barrels of oil daily from the tar-sand region of western Canada to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast. She and other elected officials, including Gov. Dave Heineman, want the project rerouted to prevent possible contamination of groundwater supplies beneath the Nebraska Sand Hills.Because the project crosses an international border, the U.S. State Department will decide whether the pipeline is in the national interest. Department officials have said they intend to make a decision by the end of the year.TransCanada, the project’s sponsor, insists that the proposed route is the most cost-efficient of several paths that were considered. Spokesmen say the comSee Pipeline: Page 2 CONTINUING COVERAGE >> Sen. Johanns says emails show that the State Department has already decided to approve the pipeline. Page 2A >> Read more at Omaha.com/ topics/pipeline
Article Continued Below
See PIPELINE on Page A02
Pipeline: Senator says she thinks colleagues may be open to sessionContinued from Page 1 pany has committed to make the Keystone XL the safest pipeline ever built. The Dubas bill would require TransCanada and other large pipeline builders to submit applications to the Nebraska Public Service Commission, which would have eight months to review the route and make a decision. Approval would give the applicant the power to use eminent domain to obtain right of way for the pipeline. Other provisions of the bill would require recommendations from eight other state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Natural Resources, the Game and Parks Commission and the Department of Revenue. The Public Service Commission also would be required to hold public hearings on proposed pipelines. The $517,000 annual cost of the bill would be covered by fees to pipeline applicants and would not require taxpayer dollars, Dubas said. The bill would require pipeline applicants to identify “unusually sensitive groundwater areas” near proposed routes. In addition, they would have to report the number of jobs anticipated for construction and operation of the pipeline, with an estimate of how many employees would come from outside the state. Currently, two underground oil pipelines cross the state: One runs through eastern Nebraska and another follows a stretch of the Platte River. Neither pipeline crosses the Sand Hills. Sen. Ken Haar of Malcolm, who worked with Dubas on the bill, said it gives Nebraska a way to protect its unique interests when a project is national in scope. Haar also has been working to convene a special session through a poll of legislators, which has never been done. It would require 33 of 49 lawmakers to agree to the special session. An informal poll of 48 state senators reached last week by The World-Herald found seven in support of a special session, nine against and 32 undecided. Nearly all the undecided senators said they wanted to see a bill. “It gives me hope that senators are keeping an open mind and waiting for something to form an opinion about,” Dubas said. While Dubas, Haar and other senators will work the phones this week, it’s safe to say Trans-Canada will, too — the company has hired Walt Radcliffe, one of Nebraska’s most influential lobbyists, to fend off a special session. Although the governor could call the special session himself, he has been unwilling to do so. Instead, he has encouraged Nebraskans who want the pipeline rerouted to make their views known to the U.S. State Department. State Department hearings last week in Lincoln and Atkinson drew hundreds of comments from supporters and opponents. In an interview Monday with The World-Herald, Heineman said he must be convinced that Dubas has the votes to pass the bill before he calls lawmakers back to the State Capitol. The governor also acknowledged that he and other state leaders should have reacted much sooner to the pipeline. Heineman did not take a firm stance against the Sand Hills route until several weeks ago. “We’re very late to this game. I don’t think there is any question Nebraska should have done something years before,” he said. The governor also said Monday that he still questions whether Nebraska has the authority to pre-empt the State Department, which already has determined that the proposed route is appropriate. For that reason, he argued that pressure needs to be applied on President Barack Obama. Dubas said Monday that she believes the state has clear constitutional authority to decide the pipeline’s route. That’s a change from the last legislative session, when she held the view that pipeline siting authority rested solely with the federal government. “It just started to bubble up to the surface that maybe states have more rights than we were led to believe,” she said. “It became more clear to me that we did have this authority.”
Monday, October 3, 2011
100% Idiot.
Michele Bachmann Thanks Supporter Who Says He'd Rather Vote For Charles Manson Than Barack Obama
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) thanked an Iowa radio show listener who said he'd rather vote for Charles Manson than President Barack Obama.
Bachmann appeared on Des Moines-based WHO Radio with Simon Conway, a conservative radio show, on September 26 for an interview and to take questions from listeners. One caller told Bachmann that he had attended several rallies and thanked her for signing a t-shirt. After the host asked him to ask a question, he said that the president was a "walking nightmare" who was "blowing up our country."
"I would vote for Charles Manson before this guy," he said. "But I’m pulling for you big time, all the way, go Michele!"
"Thank you for saying that," she replied
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) thanked an Iowa radio show listener who said he'd rather vote for Charles Manson than President Barack Obama.
Bachmann appeared on Des Moines-based WHO Radio with Simon Conway, a conservative radio show, on September 26 for an interview and to take questions from listeners. One caller told Bachmann that he had attended several rallies and thanked her for signing a t-shirt. After the host asked him to ask a question, he said that the president was a "walking nightmare" who was "blowing up our country."
"I would vote for Charles Manson before this guy," he said. "But I’m pulling for you big time, all the way, go Michele!"
"Thank you for saying that," she replied
Why not Nebraska?
Minimum Wage Raised In Four States, Washington First To Top $9
WASHINGTON -- Four states have announced that they will be raising their minimum wage rates for 2012, led by Washington state, which will become the first in the country with a minimum wage over $9 per hour.
The 37-cent bump in Washington will hike the wage to $9.04, or $1.79 per hour more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. The raise will mean an additional $770 annually for a full-time minimum-wage worker in the state.
Workers will also see a modest hike of between 28 and 30 cents in Colorado, Ohio and Montana, as well as in Oregon, which announced a wage raise on Sept. 15. In those states as well as in Washington, the higher rates trump the federal rate. The new raises are all due to cost-of-living adjustments written into state wage laws. Similar hikes are expected to be announced next month in Arizona, Florida and Vermont.
Tsedeye Gebreselassie, staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for low-wage workers, said that the raise once again sets Washington state apart from others in its progressive approach to the minimum wage.
"This shows the value of indexing," Gebreselassie said. "The reason it's $9.04 is that it's been keeping up with the cost of living over the years."
Advocates for low-wage workers argue that in addition to helping the working poor make ends meet, higher minimum wages help pump money into local economies, since such workers often have no choice but to spend their entire paychecks.
Washington passed an initiative in 1998 that tied the minimum wage to the national consumer price index, assuring that the lowest wages would rise in tandem with inflation. Some states have since followed suit, although the federal minimum wage does not include a cost-of-living adjustment.
The Washington minimum wage initiative was written by Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council, an affiliation of unions and labor groups. Johnson told HuffPost that despite the Washington minimum wage being the highest rate of its kind in the nation, there are many areas of the state where it doesn't amount to a living wage. Even so, he called the impending bump "the one bright spot on our horizon" in a down economy and dismal job market.
"At least these low-wage earners will maintain their purchasing power and go purchase things," Johnson said. "The money will go right back into the economy."
A number of states passed laws with cost-of-living adjustments after Washington did in 1998, although not as many states as advocates like Johnson had hoped. Most states continue to set their rates at the federal minimum, which Gebreselassie said has been stagnant for years. The $7.25 federal rate works out to a salary of about $15,000 and is well below the living wage for many states. Gebreselassie said the federal rate would now be over $10 if it had kept pace with inflation over the years.
"A lot of people are shocked when they realize it's $7.25 an hour," she said. "There's a lot of catching up to do."
Several states, including Maryland and Illinois, have recently considered adding cost-of-living adjustments to their minimum wages, often prompting an outcry from the business community. Business owners argue that requiring them to pay higher wages will force them to cut their number of positions, pushing jobs into neighboring states.
Backed by the state Chamber of Commerce, Missouri Republicans even mounted an unsuccessful campaign to roll back their state's cost-of-living adjustment, arguing that it would lead to job growth.
Johnson said many businesses grumble when Washington hikes its minimum wage each year, but that so far the cost-of-living adjustment doesn’t seem to have sent many jobs over the border.
"Washington state has one of the highest rates of growth in small business and retail," he said. "It doesn’t seem to be stopping these people from creating new businesses
WASHINGTON -- Four states have announced that they will be raising their minimum wage rates for 2012, led by Washington state, which will become the first in the country with a minimum wage over $9 per hour.
The 37-cent bump in Washington will hike the wage to $9.04, or $1.79 per hour more than the federal minimum wage of $7.25. The raise will mean an additional $770 annually for a full-time minimum-wage worker in the state.
Workers will also see a modest hike of between 28 and 30 cents in Colorado, Ohio and Montana, as well as in Oregon, which announced a wage raise on Sept. 15. In those states as well as in Washington, the higher rates trump the federal rate. The new raises are all due to cost-of-living adjustments written into state wage laws. Similar hikes are expected to be announced next month in Arizona, Florida and Vermont.
Tsedeye Gebreselassie, staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group for low-wage workers, said that the raise once again sets Washington state apart from others in its progressive approach to the minimum wage.
"This shows the value of indexing," Gebreselassie said. "The reason it's $9.04 is that it's been keeping up with the cost of living over the years."
Advocates for low-wage workers argue that in addition to helping the working poor make ends meet, higher minimum wages help pump money into local economies, since such workers often have no choice but to spend their entire paychecks.
Washington passed an initiative in 1998 that tied the minimum wage to the national consumer price index, assuring that the lowest wages would rise in tandem with inflation. Some states have since followed suit, although the federal minimum wage does not include a cost-of-living adjustment.
The Washington minimum wage initiative was written by Jeff Johnson, president of the Washington State Labor Council, an affiliation of unions and labor groups. Johnson told HuffPost that despite the Washington minimum wage being the highest rate of its kind in the nation, there are many areas of the state where it doesn't amount to a living wage. Even so, he called the impending bump "the one bright spot on our horizon" in a down economy and dismal job market.
"At least these low-wage earners will maintain their purchasing power and go purchase things," Johnson said. "The money will go right back into the economy."
A number of states passed laws with cost-of-living adjustments after Washington did in 1998, although not as many states as advocates like Johnson had hoped. Most states continue to set their rates at the federal minimum, which Gebreselassie said has been stagnant for years. The $7.25 federal rate works out to a salary of about $15,000 and is well below the living wage for many states. Gebreselassie said the federal rate would now be over $10 if it had kept pace with inflation over the years.
"A lot of people are shocked when they realize it's $7.25 an hour," she said. "There's a lot of catching up to do."
Several states, including Maryland and Illinois, have recently considered adding cost-of-living adjustments to their minimum wages, often prompting an outcry from the business community. Business owners argue that requiring them to pay higher wages will force them to cut their number of positions, pushing jobs into neighboring states.
Backed by the state Chamber of Commerce, Missouri Republicans even mounted an unsuccessful campaign to roll back their state's cost-of-living adjustment, arguing that it would lead to job growth.
Johnson said many businesses grumble when Washington hikes its minimum wage each year, but that so far the cost-of-living adjustment doesn’t seem to have sent many jobs over the border.
"Washington state has one of the highest rates of growth in small business and retail," he said. "It doesn’t seem to be stopping these people from creating new businesses
New Administrator
Hello fellow Democrats I have taken over running the CD3 blog. Please feel free to get on the blog and write what you think about what I and others put up. Put your own stuff on this blog if you wish. Please don't trash any fellow democrats. We are all on the same side. Getting after Tea Party fools is ok though. thanks Bud Pettigrew, Chair of Chairs NDP, SEC.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
CDO3 Blog has a new administrator.
Tom Havelka, Associate Chair of the NDP 3rd CD, is taking over the duties as the webmaster of the CDO3 website and blog. Brian T. Osborn, the creator and past webmaster, is turning over the keys and wishes Tom well in continuing these services to the Democrats in Nebraska's 3rd Congressional District.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
NDP-SCC Rules Committee Proposed C&B Changes
Lanny Munson, Chair of the NDP-SCC Rules Committee and NDP Parliamentarian, has released a set of proposals for changes to the NDP Constitution and Bylaws that will be considered at the NDP State Convention in Columbus this summer. Since many of these changes would affect the way the CDO3 and the CD3 Caucus are run, it would be to the benefit of every member of the 3rd CD Organization to look them over and discuss them in this forum.
The proposed changes can be found on the CDO3 website at http://www.nebraskademocratscd3.org
The proposed changes can be found on the CDO3 website at http://www.nebraskademocratscd3.org
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Valentine meeting January 2010
NEBRASKA THIRD DISTRICT DEMOCRATS VALENTINE MEETING AGENDA
JANUARY 30, 2010
LOCATION: CEDAR CANYON RESTAURANT. 112 NORTH MAIN STREET.
8:30-9:00 Check in.
9:00- 10:00 Business meeting.
.
Break.
First Speaker: Kate Bolz of Appleseed. “Steps toward a Strong Future. Work force Challenges and Opportunities for Nebraska”.
Second Speaker: Peggy Lippert, MSW, LCSW, Activists, Consultant, Act Now Inc. “Think, Register, Vote”.
Third Speaker: Julie Driscoll, Chicago News Hounds Reporter. “Fox News is Not Real News”
Lunch:
Fourth Speaker: Jane Kleeb. Change That Works Nebraska. “Health Reform, How We Got There and What We Need To Do Next”
Fifth Speaker: Chuck Hassebrook. Board of Regents. “A Rural Agenda for Nebraska.”
Head line Speaker: The Honorable Tim Walz Congressman of Minnesota. (A Former Resident of Valentine)
He will be introduced by Mr. Tom Brown Lincoln County Democrats Treasurer.
Nebraska Third District Congressional Candidate Rebecca Davis will be at the meeting. Secretary of State Candidates Kris Pierce and Janet Stewart will also be at the meeting and will be holding meet and greets at Cedar Canyon Restaurant the night before.
Go home-Clean up.
Any one with an interest in government, politics, and history is more than welcome to come. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, all are welcome. This meeting is free to the public. The only cost would be lunch furnished by Cedar Canyon Restaurant.
NOTE: Only Third District Democrat residents will be allowed a vote during the business portion part of the meeting. Contact information Below:
Position
LD
First Name
Last Name
Email
City
Home Phone
CDO3 Chair
41
Marion
Bahensky
mbahensky@msn.com
St. Paul
308-754-4454
CDO3 Assoc. Chair
22
Tom
Havelka
guest@megavision.com
Columbus
402-276-6601
CHAIR OF CHAIRS 43 Bud Pettigrew anbpettigrew@msn.com Valentine 402-376-1708
JANUARY 30, 2010
LOCATION: CEDAR CANYON RESTAURANT. 112 NORTH MAIN STREET.
8:30-9:00 Check in.
9:00- 10:00 Business meeting.
.
Break.
First Speaker: Kate Bolz of Appleseed. “Steps toward a Strong Future. Work force Challenges and Opportunities for Nebraska”.
Second Speaker: Peggy Lippert, MSW, LCSW, Activists, Consultant, Act Now Inc. “Think, Register, Vote”.
Third Speaker: Julie Driscoll, Chicago News Hounds Reporter. “Fox News is Not Real News”
Lunch:
Fourth Speaker: Jane Kleeb. Change That Works Nebraska. “Health Reform, How We Got There and What We Need To Do Next”
Fifth Speaker: Chuck Hassebrook. Board of Regents. “A Rural Agenda for Nebraska.”
Head line Speaker: The Honorable Tim Walz Congressman of Minnesota. (A Former Resident of Valentine)
He will be introduced by Mr. Tom Brown Lincoln County Democrats Treasurer.
Nebraska Third District Congressional Candidate Rebecca Davis will be at the meeting. Secretary of State Candidates Kris Pierce and Janet Stewart will also be at the meeting and will be holding meet and greets at Cedar Canyon Restaurant the night before.
Go home-Clean up.
Any one with an interest in government, politics, and history is more than welcome to come. Democrats, Republicans, Independents, all are welcome. This meeting is free to the public. The only cost would be lunch furnished by Cedar Canyon Restaurant.
NOTE: Only Third District Democrat residents will be allowed a vote during the business portion part of the meeting. Contact information Below:
Position
LD
First Name
Last Name
City
Home Phone
CDO3 Chair
41
Marion
Bahensky
mbahensky@msn.com
St. Paul
308-754-4454
CDO3 Assoc. Chair
22
Tom
Havelka
guest@megavision.com
Columbus
402-276-6601
CHAIR OF CHAIRS 43 Bud Pettigrew anbpettigrew@msn.com Valentine 402-376-1708
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
NSAA to women, 'We don't need you."
Since 1926 not one woman has been elected to the NSAA Board of Control. Unqualified? Dr. Jim Tenopir, Executive Director of the NSAA, gave testimony before the Legislature's Education Committee in Lincoln 23 October 2009.
Read the Education Committee's transcript here.
Read the Education Committee's transcript here.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Valentine meeting January 2010
Hello my fellow Democrats. Has I promised at the Alliance meeting I would give you an up date on scheduling for the Third District Democrats first 2010 meeting which will be held in Valentine. The meeting will take place on Saturday January 30,2010. It will be held at the meeting room of Cedar Canyon restaurant. The restaurant will also take care of the meal. We get to use the meeting room free of Charge. Many people have asked me about the agenda. I am working on getting speakers and work shops set up. We have two semi conformed. I won't announce who they are;until they are 100% tied down. Many of you have sent in suggestions for many speakers. Thank you for doing so. Please keep it up. I have contacted every person you have suggested. Some can't come. Some cost a tremendous amount of money from the cheapest of 500.00$ to the most expensive of 30,000 $. WOW! If you want those speakers please find me the funds to pay for them. The two most asked about speakers are Senator Ben Nelson and Congressman Tim Walz. Both have been contacted. Both I believe want to come. It is a matter of scheduling . Hopefully we will hear soon from them about their availability. If any of you at any time wish to talk to me about this meeting please contact me. anbpettigrew@msn.com or 402-376-1708, 402-322-0227. Bud Pettigrew NDP Chair of Chairs.
Just a quick up date. Senator Nelson emailed today. He will not be able to come to the meeting. He is scheduled to go somewhere else.
Just a quick up date. Senator Nelson emailed today. He will not be able to come to the meeting. He is scheduled to go somewhere else.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
NDP State Central Committee passes two important resolutions
Nebraska Democratic Party State Central Committee
Supports a Public Option
Lincoln, NE--- The Nebraska Democratic Party’s Central Committee weighed into the Health Care Reform debate with a nearly unanimous vote to support a Public Option.
The action took place Saturday at the Central Committee Meeting in Fort Omaha Metro Community College.
The Nebraska Democrats' resolution is set forth below.
Public Option Resolution
WHEREAS, the heath care system of the United States is in crisis, with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance, tens of millions more lacking adequate coverage, and millions more who do have private coverage paying increasingly unaffordable premiums, resulting in inadequate access to care and premature death, illness, or financial ruin for millions of Americans; and
WHEREAS, public polls show that a majority of Americans want health care reform to offer the choice of a robust public option in order to inject real competition into the marketplace and, in the words of President Obama, “keep the insurance companies honest:” and
WHEREAS, some in the healthcare insurance industry and their allies have organized and funded groups of extremists to disrupt efforts on the part of the majority and administration to discuss the issue with the American people reasonably, and have demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise in any way to pass meaningful health care reform;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nebraska Democratic Party urge our members of Congress to vote for such health care reform proposals that contain a robust public option at all stages of the legislative process including conference and reconciliation, and encourage legislators to pass such reform;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Nebraska Democratic Party shall send a copy of this resolution to all members of Congress who represent any of our members.
Nebrask Democratic Party State Central Committee Unanimously
Condemns Status at Beatrice State Developmental Center
Lincoln, NE--- The Nebraska Democratic Party’s Central Committee unanimously adopted a strongly worded resolution condemning the situation at the Beatrice State Developmental Center. The action took place Saturday at the Central Committee in Fort Omaha Metro Community College.
The Nebraska Democrats called for the Beatrice State Developmental Center to become re-certified for Federal Medicaid funds and to comply with the July 2008 Settlement Agreement with the Department of Justice.
The Resolution emphasized that the neglect and miss-management will cost Nebraska taxpayers $56 million dollars. Last month, the State lost its appeal. It will take at least two years to get re-certified
“Heineman is personally and directly responsible for the gross mismanagement of the BSDC,” said State Chair Vic Covalt. “He signed the Settlement Agreement to protect the patients down there, yet more deaths have occurred. Heineman is a bad governor who continues to fail our most needy citizens and all Nebraska taxpayers.”
The resolution also called for criminal investigations of significant incidences of neglect and abuse of the Developmentally Disabled.
The State entered the settlement agreement after a Department of Justice Lawsuit was filed alleging the conditions at BSDC unconstitutionally violated the Individual rights of patients.
The latest Expert Report filed last week in Court states that there is still much to be done to restore BSDC to the fine institution it was before Johanns and Heineman became governors.
Supports a Public Option
Lincoln, NE--- The Nebraska Democratic Party’s Central Committee weighed into the Health Care Reform debate with a nearly unanimous vote to support a Public Option.
The action took place Saturday at the Central Committee Meeting in Fort Omaha Metro Community College.
The Nebraska Democrats' resolution is set forth below.
Public Option Resolution
WHEREAS, the heath care system of the United States is in crisis, with almost fifty million Americans lacking any health insurance, tens of millions more lacking adequate coverage, and millions more who do have private coverage paying increasingly unaffordable premiums, resulting in inadequate access to care and premature death, illness, or financial ruin for millions of Americans; and
WHEREAS, public polls show that a majority of Americans want health care reform to offer the choice of a robust public option in order to inject real competition into the marketplace and, in the words of President Obama, “keep the insurance companies honest:” and
WHEREAS, some in the healthcare insurance industry and their allies have organized and funded groups of extremists to disrupt efforts on the part of the majority and administration to discuss the issue with the American people reasonably, and have demonstrated an unwillingness to compromise in any way to pass meaningful health care reform;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nebraska Democratic Party urge our members of Congress to vote for such health care reform proposals that contain a robust public option at all stages of the legislative process including conference and reconciliation, and encourage legislators to pass such reform;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Nebraska Democratic Party shall send a copy of this resolution to all members of Congress who represent any of our members.
Nebrask Democratic Party State Central Committee Unanimously
Condemns Status at Beatrice State Developmental Center
Lincoln, NE--- The Nebraska Democratic Party’s Central Committee unanimously adopted a strongly worded resolution condemning the situation at the Beatrice State Developmental Center. The action took place Saturday at the Central Committee in Fort Omaha Metro Community College.
The Nebraska Democrats called for the Beatrice State Developmental Center to become re-certified for Federal Medicaid funds and to comply with the July 2008 Settlement Agreement with the Department of Justice.
The Resolution emphasized that the neglect and miss-management will cost Nebraska taxpayers $56 million dollars. Last month, the State lost its appeal. It will take at least two years to get re-certified
“Heineman is personally and directly responsible for the gross mismanagement of the BSDC,” said State Chair Vic Covalt. “He signed the Settlement Agreement to protect the patients down there, yet more deaths have occurred. Heineman is a bad governor who continues to fail our most needy citizens and all Nebraska taxpayers.”
The resolution also called for criminal investigations of significant incidences of neglect and abuse of the Developmentally Disabled.
The State entered the settlement agreement after a Department of Justice Lawsuit was filed alleging the conditions at BSDC unconstitutionally violated the Individual rights of patients.
The latest Expert Report filed last week in Court states that there is still much to be done to restore BSDC to the fine institution it was before Johanns and Heineman became governors.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Bahensky, Havelka elected CD3 leaders
Howard County Chair, Marion Bahensky, and Platte County Chair, Tom Havelka, were elected to the positions of Chair and Associate Chair by the 3rd CD Caucus at the Nebraska Democratic Party State Central Committee meeting in Omaha on Saturday, Oct. 3rd. The two replace Lisa Hannah and Brian Osborn at the helm of the 3rd CD Organization. Hannah and Osborn resigned from their positions during the CD3 Caucus at the past NDP SCC meeting, held in June, in a deal brokered by NDP State Chair, Vic Covalt.
According to the CDO3 Bylaws, accepted at the CDO3 meeting in McCook last June, Bahensky and Havelka will share the duties of leading the 3rd CD Organization with equal authority. Ms. Bahensky, currently also the Treasurer of the CDO3, has indicated that she intends to continue to hold the office of CDO3 Treasurer until her replacement is elected at the next CDO3 meeting, to be held in Valentine in 2010.
According to the CDO3 Bylaws, accepted at the CDO3 meeting in McCook last June, Bahensky and Havelka will share the duties of leading the 3rd CD Organization with equal authority. Ms. Bahensky, currently also the Treasurer of the CDO3, has indicated that she intends to continue to hold the office of CDO3 Treasurer until her replacement is elected at the next CDO3 meeting, to be held in Valentine in 2010.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Introspection
I have often called for us Democrats in Nebraska to raise our voices and question what is wrong with our party - why it is that we fail to get Democrats elected almost anywhere but in Lincoln and Omaha. We recently lost one of our 3rd CD representatives to the SCC to the Republican Party. Yesterday, Jim Esch, the CD2 candidate for Congress in 2006 and 2008 left our party. It is time to ask WHY? It is time for us to ask ourselves, as Democrats, who are we, where are we going, and how do we want to get there?
Today I received a very thought provoking email from another good Nebraska Democrat. I like that his analysis reaches into the historical perspective to ascertain what has gone wrong, and what we need to do in order to fix it. I welcome everyone to participate in this discussion, I heartily encourage it. For by sitting on our hands, playing follow the leader, and continuing the path we've been on will guarantee us the same results we've been achieving.
Brian T. Osborn - Chair, Phelps County Democrats
The email I received:
We've often remarked on how the NDP is dysfunctional. As W. Don Nelson likes to say, "beyond dysfunctional." If you accept the premise that a political organization justifies its existence in a democracy by electing its candidates to public office, then the performance of the NDP over the last dozen or so years puts it in the first or second percentile out of the 100+ state organizations in this country.
You can't do that poorly unless there are many serious problems. In fact, it is extremely difficult to have enough problems to fail so spectacularly in accomplishing goals.
But if I had to reduce the problems of the NDP to just one or two fatal flaws, absolute obstacles that prevent success, I would point to the following:
1- In 1960, the Kennedy campaign inaugurated the "battleground states" strategy, the concept that focusing resources on states that were easier to win and ignoring the states that are problematic, was a great way to leverage time and money in a campaign (Nixon, by contrast, campaigned in all fifty states). It worked spectacularly. Although Kennedy barely won the popular vote, he racked up a huge win in the electoral college. Back then, the Democrats had the solid South and could squeeze out the big population Northern states to create landslide potential, bypassing states (like Nebraska) that had the lowest ROI (return on investment). While Kennedy was salting away the presidency, my cousin was being pushed out as the last Democrat to win in the West.
That's the same thing the NDP does. They are derisively characterized as CREOL (Committee to Reelect in Omaha and Lincoln) because they put all their resources into the two population centers -- the low-hanging fruit -- to create a strategy that results in a Tale of Two Cities.
But there are two things wrong with this approach. In the first place, the "battleground" strategy is an electoral college strategy, not a strategy to win the popular vote. Nebraska elections are decided by the popular vote, not by winning just winner-take-all population centers. If the CDs were winner-take-all, like the states in the electoral college, Nebraska's strategy would make sense. But it's not, it's popular vote that counts, and the strategy of conceding 91 rural counties -- essentially half the state -- does not and never will work. The NDP will never win statewide elections until it becomes a statewide party.
Incidentally, Howard Dean showed another flaw in the "battleground states" strategy. It turns out that the lack of attention to some states creates a solid block for the only party that campaigns there. This was not as clear when the South was solid Democratic, but when the South changed parties after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it became clearer. Howard Dean recognized that in 2004 and began to reform the national Democratic Party to adopt a full fifty-state program -- and the dramatic turnaround in 2006 and 2008 proved that his approach was correct. The "battleground" strategy has been shown to be a short-term strategy that has long-term deleterious consequences. The same in true at the state level. Winning in Lincoln and Omaha cannot in the long-run produce results at the state level -- we need a 93-county strategy (a real one, not a DINO one).
Interestingly, wizards like Achelpohl, who stood to benefit from the fifty-state strategy, were outspoken advocates for that approach at the national level. But Achelpoh never had the brains or insight to realize that what he was so in favor of at the national level, because it generated resources for Nebraska, had a state-level analogue. He just didn't get it.
2- You cannot build a Democratic Party -- a true opposition party -- when the leader of the party finds it inimical to his self-interest to have a Democratic alternative in the state. Ben Nelson calls all the shots. Vic Covalt and Vince Powers work for him. And it is not in his self-interest to have an energized and activist Democratic base, because it is contrary to his electoral strategy.
Nelson's campaign plan is to nail down the Democrats -- as the Party used to take the Solid South for granted -- and then work to win enough Republican and Independent vote to give him a majority. As Don Nelson, his campaign guru, liked to express it, Nelson's battle plan is to get all the Democrats, most of the Independents, and 1/3 of the Republicans. To do that, he will have to go as far to the right as he needs to go to get votes from the cons.
From Nelson's point of view, this strategy has proved to be extremely effective. In 1996, when he was still Governor and extremely popular in Nebraska, he had his drain pan handed to him by Chuck Hagel in his first run for the seat in the Senate vacated by Democratic Senator Exon. In 2000, he ran against Don Stenburg, the AG, (a pretty weak candidate) and won by the razor-thin margin of 10K votes. In 2006, he ran against the well-funded conservative Pete Ricketts, who defeated Stenburg in the primary and then spent $19 million. He started the race up thirty points, won the race by thirty points (and never endorsed a single Democratic candidate). If you look at it strictly from Nelson's point of view, things could not be working better.
The price we pay is suppression of the Democratic base. There has to be a cohesive and uniform subservience of the Dems to the man who supported and voted with George Bush more than any other Democrat in the United States. If there was a vigorous debate in the NDP, there might be a primary challenger than would force Nelson to adopt positions closer to the national party, and this shift would cost him votes in the general against a Republican. His game plan does not want that problem, and the result is that grassroots activism -- the enthusiasm of the base -- is rigorously suppressed.
The effect of putting a lid on Democratic activism is that the entire party, except for Nelson, is completely enervated. All the oxygen is sucked out of the room. You see that in so many ways, not the least of which is the destruction visited on other Democratic candidates (Esch, Hahn, Kleeb) who complain bitterly about their second-class treatment. For example, in 2006, when Nelson was running the so-called combined campaign and Esch was struggling to compete against Terry in CD2, the Party spent most of its money on the DA race in Douglas County -- $20,000. If this had been spent on radio ads for Esch . . . ? No NDP money was given to Kleeb, Hahn or Esch.
If the candidates feel like they are getting screwed -- and they are -- then is it any wonder we have no recruitment? They can see, or at least sense, what is happening. They have no chance to win. This is not a political party, like the one they have in Iowa for example (where the Righties are at least as far out as the cons in Nebraska -- hell, we don't have anyone as far right as Steve King, yet in Iowa they passed a bill permitting gay marriage).
It's a cult of personality, not a political party.
Today I received a very thought provoking email from another good Nebraska Democrat. I like that his analysis reaches into the historical perspective to ascertain what has gone wrong, and what we need to do in order to fix it. I welcome everyone to participate in this discussion, I heartily encourage it. For by sitting on our hands, playing follow the leader, and continuing the path we've been on will guarantee us the same results we've been achieving.
Brian T. Osborn - Chair, Phelps County Democrats
The email I received:
We've often remarked on how the NDP is dysfunctional. As W. Don Nelson likes to say, "beyond dysfunctional." If you accept the premise that a political organization justifies its existence in a democracy by electing its candidates to public office, then the performance of the NDP over the last dozen or so years puts it in the first or second percentile out of the 100+ state organizations in this country.
You can't do that poorly unless there are many serious problems. In fact, it is extremely difficult to have enough problems to fail so spectacularly in accomplishing goals.
But if I had to reduce the problems of the NDP to just one or two fatal flaws, absolute obstacles that prevent success, I would point to the following:
1- In 1960, the Kennedy campaign inaugurated the "battleground states" strategy, the concept that focusing resources on states that were easier to win and ignoring the states that are problematic, was a great way to leverage time and money in a campaign (Nixon, by contrast, campaigned in all fifty states). It worked spectacularly. Although Kennedy barely won the popular vote, he racked up a huge win in the electoral college. Back then, the Democrats had the solid South and could squeeze out the big population Northern states to create landslide potential, bypassing states (like Nebraska) that had the lowest ROI (return on investment). While Kennedy was salting away the presidency, my cousin was being pushed out as the last Democrat to win in the West.
That's the same thing the NDP does. They are derisively characterized as CREOL (Committee to Reelect in Omaha and Lincoln) because they put all their resources into the two population centers -- the low-hanging fruit -- to create a strategy that results in a Tale of Two Cities.
But there are two things wrong with this approach. In the first place, the "battleground" strategy is an electoral college strategy, not a strategy to win the popular vote. Nebraska elections are decided by the popular vote, not by winning just winner-take-all population centers. If the CDs were winner-take-all, like the states in the electoral college, Nebraska's strategy would make sense. But it's not, it's popular vote that counts, and the strategy of conceding 91 rural counties -- essentially half the state -- does not and never will work. The NDP will never win statewide elections until it becomes a statewide party.
Incidentally, Howard Dean showed another flaw in the "battleground states" strategy. It turns out that the lack of attention to some states creates a solid block for the only party that campaigns there. This was not as clear when the South was solid Democratic, but when the South changed parties after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it became clearer. Howard Dean recognized that in 2004 and began to reform the national Democratic Party to adopt a full fifty-state program -- and the dramatic turnaround in 2006 and 2008 proved that his approach was correct. The "battleground" strategy has been shown to be a short-term strategy that has long-term deleterious consequences. The same in true at the state level. Winning in Lincoln and Omaha cannot in the long-run produce results at the state level -- we need a 93-county strategy (a real one, not a DINO one).
Interestingly, wizards like Achelpohl, who stood to benefit from the fifty-state strategy, were outspoken advocates for that approach at the national level. But Achelpoh never had the brains or insight to realize that what he was so in favor of at the national level, because it generated resources for Nebraska, had a state-level analogue. He just didn't get it.
2- You cannot build a Democratic Party -- a true opposition party -- when the leader of the party finds it inimical to his self-interest to have a Democratic alternative in the state. Ben Nelson calls all the shots. Vic Covalt and Vince Powers work for him. And it is not in his self-interest to have an energized and activist Democratic base, because it is contrary to his electoral strategy.
Nelson's campaign plan is to nail down the Democrats -- as the Party used to take the Solid South for granted -- and then work to win enough Republican and Independent vote to give him a majority. As Don Nelson, his campaign guru, liked to express it, Nelson's battle plan is to get all the Democrats, most of the Independents, and 1/3 of the Republicans. To do that, he will have to go as far to the right as he needs to go to get votes from the cons.
From Nelson's point of view, this strategy has proved to be extremely effective. In 1996, when he was still Governor and extremely popular in Nebraska, he had his drain pan handed to him by Chuck Hagel in his first run for the seat in the Senate vacated by Democratic Senator Exon. In 2000, he ran against Don Stenburg, the AG, (a pretty weak candidate) and won by the razor-thin margin of 10K votes. In 2006, he ran against the well-funded conservative Pete Ricketts, who defeated Stenburg in the primary and then spent $19 million. He started the race up thirty points, won the race by thirty points (and never endorsed a single Democratic candidate). If you look at it strictly from Nelson's point of view, things could not be working better.
The price we pay is suppression of the Democratic base. There has to be a cohesive and uniform subservience of the Dems to the man who supported and voted with George Bush more than any other Democrat in the United States. If there was a vigorous debate in the NDP, there might be a primary challenger than would force Nelson to adopt positions closer to the national party, and this shift would cost him votes in the general against a Republican. His game plan does not want that problem, and the result is that grassroots activism -- the enthusiasm of the base -- is rigorously suppressed.
The effect of putting a lid on Democratic activism is that the entire party, except for Nelson, is completely enervated. All the oxygen is sucked out of the room. You see that in so many ways, not the least of which is the destruction visited on other Democratic candidates (Esch, Hahn, Kleeb) who complain bitterly about their second-class treatment. For example, in 2006, when Nelson was running the so-called combined campaign and Esch was struggling to compete against Terry in CD2, the Party spent most of its money on the DA race in Douglas County -- $20,000. If this had been spent on radio ads for Esch . . . ? No NDP money was given to Kleeb, Hahn or Esch.
If the candidates feel like they are getting screwed -- and they are -- then is it any wonder we have no recruitment? They can see, or at least sense, what is happening. They have no chance to win. This is not a political party, like the one they have in Iowa for example (where the Righties are at least as far out as the cons in Nebraska -- hell, we don't have anyone as far right as Steve King, yet in Iowa they passed a bill permitting gay marriage).
It's a cult of personality, not a political party.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
29 years
From: "BUD PETTIGREW" <
Local: Wed, Aug 26 2009 10:00 am
Subject: 29 Years
WOW! Ted Kennedy is dead. I like many people find that hard to believe , even so all the signs said it was going to happen. I could go on and on about all the great works he did for our country. I believe he changed America for the good more than any person in my life time. More than any President, more than his brothers. He did good, thanks Senator.
I think about where he was through out his life. When I was freshman in college, Senator Kennedy decided to run for President. Camolet was going to come back, I was excited. Ted Kennedy was the first of many losers I voted for in my life time. Did that make Ted Kennedy a loser? No, America was the biggest loser because he did not become President. I was just a kid then and Kennedy was the age then I am now. I did not realize then how hard it is to climb that ladder of life. Think about Ted Kennedy. He had a lot of advantages that he was born with. So why work so hard? Most know the arrows that were thrown at him. Deaths of his brothers, his drinking problems. Divorce, not becoming President. The thing I think about is the human side that I shared with him. I like him, like all of us; have their own personal life. Some things you don't want the world to know. Because he was GREAT everything about him was an open book. Everything about him was news, true or un true. I have had negative things about me come out and it is no fun. It happened to him every day. Think of all the stories that were not true about him. It had to hurt, I know it has hurt me when things are said about me that are not true. You want to lash back and get even right away. Time heals but you have scars. Ted Kennedy had a lot of scars, yet it never stopped him from being a GREAT American. That is why he worked so hard.
So what did Ted Kennedy teach me and America more than anything. Well when I was born, America was a segregated nation. His work changed that. Young people today who I complain about a lot for the most part do not care about race or that other nonsense that so many of us knew. In March of 1980 I was playing pool at a college hang out with some friends. One guy was drunk and foul mouthed. Next to us was a couple, a black guy and a white gal, on a date having fun. The Guy asked my friend to watch his language around a lady, just like any one on a date with some they care about would do. . My drunk friend said "any woman who goes out with a nigger is no lady" I was shocked and ashamed but I did nothing. I did not know what to do. I knew a lot of people thought that way. Ted Kennedy did lot to change that. I don't think you would hear that today with out something happening. Because that couple just left. Do you think they would leave now? America is better because of Ted Kennedy. Think how we believed in 1962 when he became a Senator and what we believe now when it comes to civil rights.
So in 29 years when I am the same age Senator Kennedy was when he died, what will America look like? Well the path is lighter now because of Ted Kennedy. It is up to all of us to keep it bright.
Local: Wed, Aug 26 2009 10:00 am
Subject: 29 Years
WOW! Ted Kennedy is dead. I like many people find that hard to believe , even so all the signs said it was going to happen. I could go on and on about all the great works he did for our country. I believe he changed America for the good more than any person in my life time. More than any President, more than his brothers. He did good, thanks Senator.
I think about where he was through out his life. When I was freshman in college, Senator Kennedy decided to run for President. Camolet was going to come back, I was excited. Ted Kennedy was the first of many losers I voted for in my life time. Did that make Ted Kennedy a loser? No, America was the biggest loser because he did not become President. I was just a kid then and Kennedy was the age then I am now. I did not realize then how hard it is to climb that ladder of life. Think about Ted Kennedy. He had a lot of advantages that he was born with. So why work so hard? Most know the arrows that were thrown at him. Deaths of his brothers, his drinking problems. Divorce, not becoming President. The thing I think about is the human side that I shared with him. I like him, like all of us; have their own personal life. Some things you don't want the world to know. Because he was GREAT everything about him was an open book. Everything about him was news, true or un true. I have had negative things about me come out and it is no fun. It happened to him every day. Think of all the stories that were not true about him. It had to hurt, I know it has hurt me when things are said about me that are not true. You want to lash back and get even right away. Time heals but you have scars. Ted Kennedy had a lot of scars, yet it never stopped him from being a GREAT American. That is why he worked so hard.
So what did Ted Kennedy teach me and America more than anything. Well when I was born, America was a segregated nation. His work changed that. Young people today who I complain about a lot for the most part do not care about race or that other nonsense that so many of us knew. In March of 1980 I was playing pool at a college hang out with some friends. One guy was drunk and foul mouthed. Next to us was a couple, a black guy and a white gal, on a date having fun. The Guy asked my friend to watch his language around a lady, just like any one on a date with some they care about would do. . My drunk friend said "any woman who goes out with a nigger is no lady" I was shocked and ashamed but I did nothing. I did not know what to do. I knew a lot of people thought that way. Ted Kennedy did lot to change that. I don't think you would hear that today with out something happening. Because that couple just left. Do you think they would leave now? America is better because of Ted Kennedy. Think how we believed in 1962 when he became a Senator and what we believe now when it comes to civil rights.
So in 29 years when I am the same age Senator Kennedy was when he died, what will America look like? Well the path is lighter now because of Ted Kennedy. It is up to all of us to keep it bright.
Monday, August 24, 2009
CDO3 Bylaws
BYLAWS
of the Third Congressional District Organization
of the Nebraska Democratic Party
(as accepted in McCook, NE on June 6, 2009)
I. Name
The name of the Organization shall be the Third Congressional District Organization of the Nebraska Democratic Party (3rd CDO).
II. Mission Statement
The 3rd CDO shall serve as an advocate for persons in Nebraska’s Third Congressional District (3rd CD), promote full participation within the Nebraska Democratic Party (NDP) and serve as a forum for discussing and formulating positions on issues of importance to the 3rd CD.
III. Membership
Third CD delegates and alternates to the NDP State Convention shall automatically become members of the 3rd CDO. All NDP State Central Committee (SCC) members and all Democratic County Officers from the 3rd CD shall also automatically become members of the organization.
IV. Organization Officers
A. The elected officers of the 3rd CDO shall be: Chair, Associate Chair, Secretary and Treasurer. The 3rd CDO officers shall constitute the 3rd CDO Executive Committee. Election of officers shall be made without discrimination and shall be consistent with NDP policy.
B. The Chair and the Associate Chair shall share authority and responsibilities. The Chair and Associate Chair shall execute the policies of the 3rd CDO. The Chair and Associate Chair shall be elected for two-year terms at the 3rd CD Caucus meeting during the NDP State Convention. The Secretary and Treasurer shall be elected during the first 3rd CDO meeting following the NDP State Convention and shall assume office prior to adjournment of that meeting.
C. The Chair and/or Associate Chair shall plan, organize and preside at all 3rd CDO meetings; maintain general management over the activities of the 3rd CDO and coordinate, with the organization, any additional duties or responsibilities.
D. The Associate Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair when the Chair is unable to fulfill such duties. If the position of Chair becomes vacant, the Associate Chair automatically becomes the Chair according to the NDP Constitution - Article 5-D. CD Chairs or Associate Chairs shall be replaced by election in their respective CD Caucuses of the NDP SCC following notification of the vacancy.
E. The Secretary shall distribute notices of 3rd CDO meetings; maintain minutes of these meetings and the 3rd CDO correspondence; and keep a current set of bylaws and any amendments. A sign-in sheet will be used for attendance at each meeting.
F. The Treasurer shall be in charge of the record keeping of all 3rd CDO funds. All 3rd CDO funds shall be used to benefit the 3rd CDO.
G. The Executive Committee shall have the responsibility for handling urgent and needed organizational business between meetings.
V. Meetings
A. Meetings of the 3rd CDO shall be held at least quarterly, wherever possible. The meetings shall rotate throughout the CD. If at all possible, notice shall be given where the next meeting will be held at the current meeting. Notice of these meetings shall be given to each member at least two weeks prior to the meeting. Only members in good standing may vote.
B. Special meetings may be called by a majority of the 3rd CDO Executive Committee, or 25 voting members in good standing. Notice of meetings shall be given at least two weeks prior to the meeting.
C. A quorum shall consist of all members present at the meeting. All business matters shall be decided by a majority vote, unless otherwise specified by these bylaws. There shall be no proxy voting.
VI. Elections
A. Officer elections will be held biennially in even numbered years. The Chair and the Associate Chair shall be elected for two-year terms at the 3rd CD Caucus meeting during the NDP State Convention. The Secretary and Treasurer shall be elected during the first meeting of the 3rd CDO following the NDP State Convention and shall assume office prior to adjournment of that meeting.
B. Balloting shall take place by secret ballot unless the body decides otherwise by a 2/3 vote. Each candidate shall appoint a teller to handle the counting of ballots.
C. Nomination of officers shall be made without discrimination, and be broadly representative. Nominations may be made from the floor. A member may nominate him/her self.
D. Any vacancy among the 3rd CDO officers will be filled at the next 3rd CDO meeting after the vacancy occurs with the exception of the office of Chair, which will be filled immediately upon its occurrence by the accession of the Vice Chair.
E. Any 3rd CDO officer may be recalled for reasons defined in the NDP Constitution Section 2. - Removal of Congressional District Officers. A meeting to consider removal of 3rd CDO Officers shall be called upon petition of 25 percent of the members of the 3rd CDO. An officer may be removed by a majority of those members present at the meeting. Grounds for removal shall be the same as for NDP officers.
VII. Committees
A. The organization may form and appoint committees to perform various functions. The duties, membership, and responsibilities of those committees will be outlined at the time of formation.
B. Any funds needed to perform the duties of a committee should be approved by the organization at the time of the formation.
VIII. Amendments
A. These bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the 3rd CDO membership attending a 3rd CDO meeting, provided that written notice of any proposed amendments have been mailed or emailed to all members at least two weeks prior to the meeting at which any amendment is to be considered.
B. The bylaws shall be reviewed annually and may be revised during the first meeting of each calendar year.
C. These bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the 3rd CDO membership attending a 3rd CDO meeting, provided that written notice of any proposed amendments have been mailed or emailed to all members at least one month prior to the meeting at which any amendment is to be considered.
IX. Parliamentary Authority
The most current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be the Parliamentary Authority for the 3rd CDO. In any conflict between Robert’s Rules of Order and the NDP Constitution and Bylaws and/or the law of the State of Nebraska, NDP Constitution and Bylaws or the law of the State of Nebraska takes precedence.
of the Third Congressional District Organization
of the Nebraska Democratic Party
(as accepted in McCook, NE on June 6, 2009)
I. Name
The name of the Organization shall be the Third Congressional District Organization of the Nebraska Democratic Party (3rd CDO).
II. Mission Statement
The 3rd CDO shall serve as an advocate for persons in Nebraska’s Third Congressional District (3rd CD), promote full participation within the Nebraska Democratic Party (NDP) and serve as a forum for discussing and formulating positions on issues of importance to the 3rd CD.
III. Membership
Third CD delegates and alternates to the NDP State Convention shall automatically become members of the 3rd CDO. All NDP State Central Committee (SCC) members and all Democratic County Officers from the 3rd CD shall also automatically become members of the organization.
IV. Organization Officers
A. The elected officers of the 3rd CDO shall be: Chair, Associate Chair, Secretary and Treasurer. The 3rd CDO officers shall constitute the 3rd CDO Executive Committee. Election of officers shall be made without discrimination and shall be consistent with NDP policy.
B. The Chair and the Associate Chair shall share authority and responsibilities. The Chair and Associate Chair shall execute the policies of the 3rd CDO. The Chair and Associate Chair shall be elected for two-year terms at the 3rd CD Caucus meeting during the NDP State Convention. The Secretary and Treasurer shall be elected during the first 3rd CDO meeting following the NDP State Convention and shall assume office prior to adjournment of that meeting.
C. The Chair and/or Associate Chair shall plan, organize and preside at all 3rd CDO meetings; maintain general management over the activities of the 3rd CDO and coordinate, with the organization, any additional duties or responsibilities.
D. The Associate Chair shall perform the duties of the Chair when the Chair is unable to fulfill such duties. If the position of Chair becomes vacant, the Associate Chair automatically becomes the Chair according to the NDP Constitution - Article 5-D. CD Chairs or Associate Chairs shall be replaced by election in their respective CD Caucuses of the NDP SCC following notification of the vacancy.
E. The Secretary shall distribute notices of 3rd CDO meetings; maintain minutes of these meetings and the 3rd CDO correspondence; and keep a current set of bylaws and any amendments. A sign-in sheet will be used for attendance at each meeting.
F. The Treasurer shall be in charge of the record keeping of all 3rd CDO funds. All 3rd CDO funds shall be used to benefit the 3rd CDO.
G. The Executive Committee shall have the responsibility for handling urgent and needed organizational business between meetings.
V. Meetings
A. Meetings of the 3rd CDO shall be held at least quarterly, wherever possible. The meetings shall rotate throughout the CD. If at all possible, notice shall be given where the next meeting will be held at the current meeting. Notice of these meetings shall be given to each member at least two weeks prior to the meeting. Only members in good standing may vote.
B. Special meetings may be called by a majority of the 3rd CDO Executive Committee, or 25 voting members in good standing. Notice of meetings shall be given at least two weeks prior to the meeting.
C. A quorum shall consist of all members present at the meeting. All business matters shall be decided by a majority vote, unless otherwise specified by these bylaws. There shall be no proxy voting.
VI. Elections
A. Officer elections will be held biennially in even numbered years. The Chair and the Associate Chair shall be elected for two-year terms at the 3rd CD Caucus meeting during the NDP State Convention. The Secretary and Treasurer shall be elected during the first meeting of the 3rd CDO following the NDP State Convention and shall assume office prior to adjournment of that meeting.
B. Balloting shall take place by secret ballot unless the body decides otherwise by a 2/3 vote. Each candidate shall appoint a teller to handle the counting of ballots.
C. Nomination of officers shall be made without discrimination, and be broadly representative. Nominations may be made from the floor. A member may nominate him/her self.
D. Any vacancy among the 3rd CDO officers will be filled at the next 3rd CDO meeting after the vacancy occurs with the exception of the office of Chair, which will be filled immediately upon its occurrence by the accession of the Vice Chair.
E. Any 3rd CDO officer may be recalled for reasons defined in the NDP Constitution Section 2. - Removal of Congressional District Officers. A meeting to consider removal of 3rd CDO Officers shall be called upon petition of 25 percent of the members of the 3rd CDO. An officer may be removed by a majority of those members present at the meeting. Grounds for removal shall be the same as for NDP officers.
VII. Committees
A. The organization may form and appoint committees to perform various functions. The duties, membership, and responsibilities of those committees will be outlined at the time of formation.
B. Any funds needed to perform the duties of a committee should be approved by the organization at the time of the formation.
VIII. Amendments
A. These bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the 3rd CDO membership attending a 3rd CDO meeting, provided that written notice of any proposed amendments have been mailed or emailed to all members at least two weeks prior to the meeting at which any amendment is to be considered.
B. The bylaws shall be reviewed annually and may be revised during the first meeting of each calendar year.
C. These bylaws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the 3rd CDO membership attending a 3rd CDO meeting, provided that written notice of any proposed amendments have been mailed or emailed to all members at least one month prior to the meeting at which any amendment is to be considered.
IX. Parliamentary Authority
The most current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, shall be the Parliamentary Authority for the 3rd CDO. In any conflict between Robert’s Rules of Order and the NDP Constitution and Bylaws and/or the law of the State of Nebraska, NDP Constitution and Bylaws or the law of the State of Nebraska takes precedence.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Resignations of 3rd CD Chair and Associate Chair
The Chair and Associate Chair of the 3rd CD resigned during the 3rd CD Caucus meeting in Grand Island on June 27. Transcriptions of their speeches, with accompanying audio follows:
--------------------
BRIAN OSBORN - (click here for audio)
For those of you who remember, back during our State Convention, I got up and I promised you that I would do something, and that was to give each of you a voice in this party. Unfortunately, I have a very strong voice, and I feel that my voice has just as much right to be heard as anyone else’s and I probably stepped on a few toes while doing that.
I’m sorry if I’ve offended anyone. I think that most of the time I have kept my comments to things that were pertinent to the 3rd Congressional District and the 3rd Congressional District Organization. I’m not real good on diplomacy. I admit that. But I think that for our Nebraska Democratic Party to become a strong organization we need more people with strong voices, and we need more freedom for everyone to speak what’s in their hearts and on their minds, and that is what I have fought for for the past year, and that is what I will continue to fight for from now on, only in another capacity.
I am resigning as the Associate Chair and I understand that Lisa will be resigning as the Chair. We’ve had some differences, some of them on ... I’d say most of them concerning what the 3rd Congressional District Organization is supposed to be. I go by what is written in the Nebraska Democratic Party Constitution and Bylaws. Others go by what their interpretation of those are. I will always defend the Constitution and Bylaws of the Nebraska Democratic Party over my own personal beliefs, first and foremost.
But I am not going to silence my personal opinions, because I am a Democrat, I am proud to be a Democrat, and I will continue to be a Democrat. And, for me, that means being a loud-mouthed ... whatever you want to call it.
I thank you for having given me the opportunity to serve you the best that I could. And believe you me, I will continue to do so.
--------------------
LISA HANNAH - (click here for audio)
I did a pre-written statement so I’m just going to read it off, and before I do so I just want to point everybody out that my father and my husband are here today So I think its important.
Last year I offered my candidacy (pardon me).
Last year I offered my candidacy as 3rd District Chair because a number of people encouraged me to do so. They cited my skills in messaging and organizing and urged me to use those skills for the benefit of the 3rd District and efforts to elect Democrats. It was an honor to be asked, and an honor to be elected.
Although I was aware of an undercurrent of bad feeling generated by a few people in our district I had not experienced problems working with them as individuals or as a group prior to my election and never even considered it an issue. The problems began almost the day I was elected and continue to this day. Whether it’s been philosophical, procedural or practical, or its been long range goals, or details on correspondence, or meeting plans - the attacks have been vicious, baseless, mean spirited aimed to undermine my own position and the ability to perform the duties as district chair as stipulated in the Nebraska Democratic Party’s Constitution and Bylaws. Furthermore in trying to seek out how to resolve the matters through the proper channels the requests were denied or ignored.
When one is the target of the politics of personal destruction it is painful and it effects a person, their health and their life. But its one thing if just I ____ effected, its another if it affects something greater. I recognize that what has been directed at me effects not only the 3rd District but the Nebraska Democratic Party as a whole. I’ve always believed the party is an idea much greater than just the individual, it’s the sum of its parts And as long as that atmosphere exists progress can never be made, I believe the only option at this point is to end the dysfunctional atmosphere. Therefore I here offer my resignation as District Chair.
--------------------
BRIAN OSBORN - (click here for audio)
For those of you who remember, back during our State Convention, I got up and I promised you that I would do something, and that was to give each of you a voice in this party. Unfortunately, I have a very strong voice, and I feel that my voice has just as much right to be heard as anyone else’s and I probably stepped on a few toes while doing that.
I’m sorry if I’ve offended anyone. I think that most of the time I have kept my comments to things that were pertinent to the 3rd Congressional District and the 3rd Congressional District Organization. I’m not real good on diplomacy. I admit that. But I think that for our Nebraska Democratic Party to become a strong organization we need more people with strong voices, and we need more freedom for everyone to speak what’s in their hearts and on their minds, and that is what I have fought for for the past year, and that is what I will continue to fight for from now on, only in another capacity.
I am resigning as the Associate Chair and I understand that Lisa will be resigning as the Chair. We’ve had some differences, some of them on ... I’d say most of them concerning what the 3rd Congressional District Organization is supposed to be. I go by what is written in the Nebraska Democratic Party Constitution and Bylaws. Others go by what their interpretation of those are. I will always defend the Constitution and Bylaws of the Nebraska Democratic Party over my own personal beliefs, first and foremost.
But I am not going to silence my personal opinions, because I am a Democrat, I am proud to be a Democrat, and I will continue to be a Democrat. And, for me, that means being a loud-mouthed ... whatever you want to call it.
I thank you for having given me the opportunity to serve you the best that I could. And believe you me, I will continue to do so.
--------------------
LISA HANNAH - (click here for audio)
I did a pre-written statement so I’m just going to read it off, and before I do so I just want to point everybody out that my father and my husband are here today So I think its important.
Last year I offered my candidacy (pardon me).
Last year I offered my candidacy as 3rd District Chair because a number of people encouraged me to do so. They cited my skills in messaging and organizing and urged me to use those skills for the benefit of the 3rd District and efforts to elect Democrats. It was an honor to be asked, and an honor to be elected.
Although I was aware of an undercurrent of bad feeling generated by a few people in our district I had not experienced problems working with them as individuals or as a group prior to my election and never even considered it an issue. The problems began almost the day I was elected and continue to this day. Whether it’s been philosophical, procedural or practical, or its been long range goals, or details on correspondence, or meeting plans - the attacks have been vicious, baseless, mean spirited aimed to undermine my own position and the ability to perform the duties as district chair as stipulated in the Nebraska Democratic Party’s Constitution and Bylaws. Furthermore in trying to seek out how to resolve the matters through the proper channels the requests were denied or ignored.
When one is the target of the politics of personal destruction it is painful and it effects a person, their health and their life. But its one thing if just I ____ effected, its another if it affects something greater. I recognize that what has been directed at me effects not only the 3rd District but the Nebraska Democratic Party as a whole. I’ve always believed the party is an idea much greater than just the individual, it’s the sum of its parts And as long as that atmosphere exists progress can never be made, I believe the only option at this point is to end the dysfunctional atmosphere. Therefore I here offer my resignation as District Chair.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
3rd CD Chair and Associate Chair Resign
The 3rd CD Chair, Lisa Hannah, and the 3rd CD Associate Chair, Brian Osborn, both tendered their resignations today during the 3rd CD Caucus meeting at the State Central Committee meeting in Grand Island. Elections will be held at the next SCC meeting to replace them.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Thanks
Hello Third District Democrats. I have a great big thank you for your support this year and for honoring me with the Third District, Bob Kerrey Outstanding Democratic Volunteer of the year award.
Bud Pettigrew
Bud Pettigrew
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
