For those who cannot make any of the public meetings, LES has made the prior meeting videos available through their website and will ultimately add all four at the conclusion of the series. LES  is encouraging customers to fill out an online survey after they’ve had an opportunity to review the information available. Click HERE to visit their website. Link to the information about the rates’ meeting is available on the front page.

This idea has been making the email forward rounds, thought others may enjoy…

“Firearms Refresher Course”

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don’t know your rights, you don’t have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
11. What part of “shall not be infringed” do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies; rust and politicians.
15. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
16. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911: Government sponsored Dial-A-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control; it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You have only the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the gun control law we ALREADY have; don’t make more.
24. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.

Thomas Jefferson made the astute observation:

“When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

Today, the problem with our government at all levels is that it has no fear of the people. In fact, it’s worse than that. Our elected officials, as a group, have no regard for us either. Countless calls and emails do not stop these politicians from passing legislation that is contrary to the will and consent of the governed. If we, the people, are to secure our liberty, we must bring our elected officials back under our control. If Jefferson was right, to do that, we’re going to have to scare the pants off of them, then make sure they stay afraid — very afraid.

How do we do this, you ask? By the time he or she gets to Washington, it’s very difficult to unseat any incumbent. I do not need to provide a more vivid example of this phenomenon than Representative Pete Stark from California, a disrespectful, sarcastic, nasty, self-satisfied, sorry excuse for a man, who is a prime example of why “Congressional politician” is the least trusted profession in America. In spite of himself, Representative Stark has managed to hold onto his seat in Congress for 37 years. Clearly, it’s too late to begin to put the fear into them once they’ve crossed the Potomac. We need to begin much earlier, when they are still close to home, and living among us.

Let’s face it, before the crash in 2008 and before the first bailout occurred, most of us were relatively oblivious to what the federal government was doing. If possible, we were, as a group, even more uninformed about state and local government activity.

Are you aware that four of the five men who currently represent Nebraska in Congress began their political careers in city government? All of them moved from there to the State Legislature or Governor’s Office, or both, and from there to Congress.

I ask you, how much easier would it have been to unseat one of these men, or see that he never got elected in the first place, if we had begun when he ran for the city council in his home town? What if, when he ran for that first office, he had a number of truly principled, solidly limited-government people whispering in his ear instead of political party hacks? What if those same kinds of people turned out en mass as volunteers to walk precincts for him in that first election? What if, because of that effort, he knew his election depended upon that activism?  Finally, what if, during his term on the city council, those same people attended council meetings and communicated with him about council business, not just to complain, but to commend him when his votes were consistent with limited-government principles?

It is simply logical – extrapolate that idea from a fellow’s start on the City Council and continue it through a run for Congress. Should the elected official / candidate be seduced or corrupted by the process or become too much a creature of their political party, there would be enough people watching to know it and take appropriate action.

In order for these ideas to work, candidates need to be questioned about their basic principles, not just listened to on the stump. Worthy candidates need to be actively supported and then just as actively monitored if elected.

But we haven’t done this, have we? We’ve been uninvolved, unaware, and largely unresponsive, regardless of what our elected officials have done or have failed to do. No wonder they don’t have much regard for our opinions now. We haven’t taught them to fear us. And, as demonstrated in the previous paragraphs, they must be taught this lesson early, and they must be reminded of it often.

Where shall we begin? More to come…

Seems rather curious that our Governor has been complaining about the acceptance of federal funds recently…

Wow...Nebraska gets 38% of its budget from the Feds?

This is a multi-year chart:

The bar graph may be difficult to see clearly. Note that the bottom part of each bar is labeled “State Taxes”, the top “Cash and Federal Funds”.

The source of this information is the State Treasurer’s website Nebraska Spending. These two graphics came from THIS page.

This assault on common sense and reasoning is not well received when coming from a Democrat, but most especially not from one who clearly believes she is Queen of the Universe.

But, what about those who advertise themselves as promoting limited government and personal responsibility and who state a mission that includes researching economics and educating the public about it?

On August 27th, the Platte Institute for Economic Research (Platte) sent out an email newsletter with a feature article entitled “The Economic Benefits of SNAP” in Nebraska. (Click HERE for a snapshot of the newsletter and see full text at the very bottom of this article.) SNAP stands for “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program“, and is the new name for the now-combined programs formerly known as Food Stamps and WIC.  According to the former Platte intern, Kelly Dunlap, who authored the piece and who is now a SNAP Outreach Specialist, “[t]he name change reflects an increased focus on nutrition and an effort to eliminate the stigma associated with the program.”

In plain language, the name change amounts to a marketing ploy to convince people who are now dependent on the program to feel more comfortable in their dependency.  After all, it’s not charity or welfare; they’re entitled to it.  The “entitlement mentality” so encouraged is problematic.  An argument can be made that the extension of unemployment benefits to 99 weeks has resulted in a higher overall level of unemployment and a higher incidence of long-term unemployment, in essence, turning what was a temporary misfortune into a chronic problem.  How much more dangerous to individual self-sufficiency is the SNAP program, whose benefits apparently extend so long as need persists? (See notes.)

In 1996, Democrats and Republicans recognized welfare programs do nothing more than create cycles of dependency. The result was across the board welfare reform. Programs like SNAP are on the march to reversing those reforms. Ms. Dunlap noted, “In recent years there has been a nationwide effort to assist eligible citizens to claim these benefits.” We wonder if citizens have won a lottery prize? To imply people should “claim” something is to imply it already belongs to them, they are entitled to it. What will happen to all of the people who accept the idea they are entitled to the many benefits handed out by the federal government when the funding runs out? Considering the state of the federal government’s finances and debt levels, we simply cannot sustain all of these programs. Having been rendered dependent and feeling entitled, all of these efforts to get people to “claim their benefits” will only result in large numbers of Americans who are less prepared to care for themselves and their families.

Much of the rest of the article sounds freakishly like Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi thinks unemployment benefits create jobs, and the Platte Institute’s former intern thinks the “SNAP” program stimulates Nebraska’s economy.  Any hope of a reasoned analysis is dashed when Ms. Dunlap begins by implying that the program itself is, essentially, free of cost to Nebraskans because “SNAP benefits are fully funded by the federal government.”  Nebraska taxpayers are, apparently, only financially responsible for half the program’s administrative costs.  What a deal!  Sign us up!

Where does Ms. Dunlap and those economic czars at the Platte Institute think the federal government gets the money it funnels into SNAP and other entitlement programs?  In order to give to some, the federal government must first take away from others in the form of taxes.  Because Ms. Dunlap seems oblivious to this fact, it’s a near certainty Nebraska taxpayers’ contributions to the federal purse used to fund SNAP benefits did not figure into her rosy economic outlook.  Her failure to take these costs into account, however, is just the tip of the iceberg.

Ms. Dunlap and, by association, the Platte Institute subscribe to the idea that government spending can stimulate economic growth.  In fact, they clearly believe that government spending has a multiplier effect that allows the money to re-circulate through the economy multiple times; so, in effect, for every dollar of government spending, more than a dollar of economic benefit is produced.  Ms. Dunlap assures her readers, “only $50 in [SNAP] benefits pours $92 into the local economy,” and “a temporary increase in food stamps [is] the fastest way to stimulate the economy, even better than stimulus measures such as infrastructure spending.”  (NOTE:  If this is true, why don’t we all just quit working and apply for SNAP benefits?  Nebraska’s economic woes would be solved in a SNAP — Right?)

But, again, Ms. Dunlap, just where does the money come from?  Yes, $50 in SNAP benefits can be spent at a grocery store, which, in turn, can use that $50 to pay salaries and support other jobs. The total amount of additional economic activity will be well above $50; but because government must first take the $50 from taxpayers, that same money is now unavailable to the private sector — which would have spent the same $50 with the same multiplier effect.

In fact, because government operates so much more inefficiently than the private sector, it is necessary for the federal government to confiscate more than $50 from taxpayers in order to provide $50 in SNAP benefits AND pay the fed’s one-half share of the program’s administrative costs (i.e., to process the paperwork to qualify each program participant and, ultimately, to deliver the money to beneficiaries).  When all administrative costs are taken into account, including those expended by the government in levying and collecting the taxes that fund SNAP and other programs,  the multiplier effect of federal spending tends to trend toward one or less.  And, since one times a number equals that number, there is no multiplier at all.  If the multiplier trends below one, then government spending actually produces a net loss to the overall economy.

Incidentally, when Linda called the Platte Institute to cancel her subscription to its e-newsletter, she pointed out these issues, rather stridently, she admits.  She was assured by Platte’s Director of Communications, Berk Brown, that he would be happy to remove her from Platte’s e-mail list.  She’s apparently the type of “narrow-minded” person Platte does not care to have reading their publications.  Pity.  They might have learned something.

Notes:

On the SNAP program website, the following information is listed about work requirements to qualify for the program:

Employment Requirements

*The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) eliminated the time limit for able-bodied adults without dependents (ABAWDs) during the period from April 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010, unless a State chooses to offer a qualifying work activity. *

Generally ABAWDS between 18 and 50 who do not have any dependent children can get SNAP benefits only for 3 months in a 36-month period if they do not work or participate in a workfare or employment and training program other than job search. This requirement is waived in some locations.

With some exceptions, able-bodied adults between 16 and 60 must register for work, accept suitable employment, and take part in an employment and training program to which they are referred by the local office. Failure to comply with these requirements can result in disqualification from the Program.

FULL TEXT OF MS. DUNLAP’S ARTICLE:

(Note – as a government employee, Ms. Dunlap’s work product is in the public domain.)

“The Economic Benefits of SNAP in Nebraska”

By Kelly Dunlap
SNAP Outreach Specialist

The food stamp program is the largest of the federal nutritional assistance programs, which also includes programs such as the Women, Infants and Children (WIC), school meals and disaster relief. Last year, its benefits helped an average of 33 million low-income people purchase nutritious food each month. The program has been renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. The name change reflects an increased focus on nutrition and an effort to eliminate the stigma associated with the program.

Though some stigma remains, a recent New York Times article tells of how the recent recession has caused some who were once critical of the program to become dependent on its benefits to put food on the table. In March of 2010, 163,320 Nebraskans, about 9 percent of the total population, received nutrition assistance from SNAP. From August 2003 to August 2008, there was a 16 percent increase in the number of SNAP participants, according to the Food and Research Action Council. Despite this recent increase, about one-third of eligible Nebraskans still do not receive the benefits for which they qualify. In recent years there has been a nationwide effort to assist eligible citizens to claim these benefits.

Increased participation rates in SNAP not only results in feeding the hungry and helping people transition to self-sufficiency; it can also have a positive impact on Nebraska’s economy. SNAP benefits are fully funded by the federal government, and states are only financially responsible for half of administrative costs. According to USDA estimates, each dollar of SNAP benefits received by a Nebraskan generates an additional $1.84 of economic activity; therefore, only $50 in benefits pours $92 into the local economy. In fact, economist Mark Zandi from Moody’s Economy stated that a temporary increase in food stamps was the fastest way to stimulate the economy, even better than stimulus measures such as infrastructure spending.

As an example, SNAP dollars spent at local grocery stores trigger the cycle of need and demand leading to increased income and spending in the state. In doing so, local businesses feel less of an impact from financial hardships, perhaps helping to keep them in business and keep individuals employed rather than potentially laying off workers who may then find themselves in need of assistance.

Nebraska’s SNAP program is also a model for a well-run system; its exceptionally low error rates recently garnered national recognition and substantial performance bonuses. In such difficult times more people have an appreciation for the benefits of programs like SNAP. It does not just directly assist the families in need, but truly helps the state as a whole as we attempt to trudge out of the recession as unscathed as possible.

http://www.frac.org/data/
FSPparticipation/2010_03.pdf#page=4

http://frac.org/pdf/
SOS_2008_withcover_nov08.pdf

http://www.fns.usda.gov/
snap/outreach/pdfs/bc_facts.pdf

http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/
assissing-the-impact-of-the-fiscal-stimulus.pdf

http://www.dhhs.ne.gov/newsroom/
newsreleases/2010/June/snap.htm

Although this little number was put together as a result of the Bernie Maddoff scam, it seems very appropriate, considering recent trends in the stock market.

Capitol Steps is a Washington, D.C. based comedy troupe that takes shots at politicians on both sides of the aisle. Funny stuff.

In late June, members of Grassroots in Nebraska attended an Ad Hoc Committee meeting at the State Capitol, in part to learn more about the budgeting process and some of our Senators. Our primary purpose, however, was to understand the direction the Legislature might be headed with regard to the looming budget shortfall for Fiscal Years 2011 – 2013.

I purposefully took copious notes of the meeting, had them reviewed by another spectator, and have made them available online. I refrained as much as possible from editorializing in my notes, as I had always planned to write a separate analysis. If you wish to read the notes in full, click HERE.

What I have laid out here is “the good, the bad, and the ugly” – my analysis of the proposed process and the philosophy that seems to underpin it.

Quick Facts:

• Article XIII, Section 1, of Nebraska’s Constitution prohibits the state from contracting debt greater than $100,000, with very limited exceptions. In the event of budget shortfalls, money cannot be borrowed, so spending must be cut or taxes raised.
• A special legislative session was required in November 2009 to handle a budget shortfall for the 2009 – 2010 budget year. Recognizing there is an even larger projected budget shortfall for the biennial budget 2011 – 2013 and that current state statutes did not give the Legislature much flexibility in dealing with budget issues, the Legislature passed LR 542 near the end of the 2010 legislative session.
• LR 542 was necessary because state statute authorized the Legislature to determine how much funding the different state agencies received, but any changes or cuts in particular programs within those agencies required specific legislation.
• LR 542 created an Ad Hoc Committee, chaired by Speaker of the Legislature, and whose members are the chairs of each of the Legislative Committees.
• At the time of the meeting, the projected shortfall was $680 million for the 2011 – 2013 budget period, meaning an annual deficit of $340 million.
• $340 million is essentially 10% of the annual Nebraska budget of $3.4 billion.
• There appears to be “no appetite” for raising taxes, as noted by Speaker Mike Flood, so the budget must be cut. The special process was created precisely for eliminating state programs, not just cutting or trimming. Cutting, trimming, etc., are, by state statute, the duty of the Appropriations Committee.
• Committee Chairs were instructed to work through their respective committees to draw up options lists for cutting programs 10% across the board.
• The process, if followed, would mean all the work of the Committee would be completed to allow any legislation to be introduced early in the 2011 Legislative session and, therefore, easily coordinated with the usual budget process.

The Good:

A recognition that the budget should be cut rather than taxes increased is to be applauded.

The Speaker of the Legislature, Mike Flood, should be commended for running an efficient meeting and for clearly laying out the process to all present. Most importantly, all who determined to handle the budget shortfall well in advance are to be commended. It became clear last session (through visits and observation) that the budget is not well understood by many of Nebraska’s Senators, and the LR 542 process should increase their knowledge significantly.

Flood is to be commended, beyond what has already been noted, for reminding the Senators of their legislative duty – the Legislature holds the power of the purse strings. This admonishment is very likely necessary considering that long term bureaucrats, which are mostly part of the executive branch, will be providing much of the information to the Committees.

In addition to suggesting the elimination of programs, Committee chairs were encouraged to compile lists of suggested general cutting or trimming ideas and submit them to the Appropriations Committee Chair. Appropriations can use that information when engaging in the usual budget process. I found this to be a hopeful sign that, if any of the Legislative Committees discovered wasteful spending, there was some outlet for them to submit that information.

The Bad:

Citizens are not allowed to observe some of the process. One of the inadequacies of our Unicameral system is that “increased” media access is thought to be a sufficient safeguard for the people’s interests. While the press is allowed access to many aspects of the process, if the people of Nebraska wish to sit in as observers, as members of “The Second House”, we should be allowed to do so.

The atmosphere at the meeting and the plan being followed indicates the Senators have no concept of cutting government unless they are forced to do so by the Nebraska Constitution, and then only to the minimum level required. Nebraska may be in relatively better economic shape than many other states, but that does not mean that government is either not spending wastefully or providing unnecessary services. With consistent budget shortfalls and an economic outlook that grows dimmer by the day, it seems now would be the time to take a far closer look at how Nebraska is spending our money.

Senators seemed predisposed to use the majority of the “rainy day” funds available to cover the first $340 million shortage, rather than getting more aggressive about cutting spending.

There were no vocal advocates present for shrinking government. Almost every comment made pertained to avoiding cuts for one reason or another. Further, the comment from the Revenue Chair, Senator Abbie Cornett, was not only a bit ominous, but also seemed like political double-speak. She noted the Revenue Committee was already looking at “matrices to supplement revenue”. Translated for us lesser beings, that means tax increases.

The Ugly:

By following a path of 10% cuts across the board, there is an inherently flawed philosophy at work. An across the board strategy assumes that all departments and programs are equally valid, that all are proper functions of government, and that none should be looked at with any particular scrutiny.

A phrase repeated by too many of the Senators present was this program or that program could not be cut because it is a federal program, it is a program that receives federal matching funds, or is “mandatory”.

Mike Calvert, the bureaucrat from the Legislative Fiscal Office, very clinically detailed how there had been a hope that Congress would provide additional “ERA” dollars, which would solve a number of problems. Unfortunately, this too requires translation. “ERA” means funds from the February 2009 Stimulus bill. As of the time of the meeting, it did not appear as if Congress was going to vote for those additional funds.

None of the Senators present made any remarks regarding the “ERA” funds.

Do our Senators realize that federal money does not fall out of the sky? I suppose in some ways it does, if one considers the sources (borrowing, printing). If they do, one would like to think that there would be someone in the room who would object. All evidence points to the very unfortunate fact that our Nebraska Senators are eagerly looking forward to any additional federal dollars that will come Nebraska’s way.

As another member of GiN who attended the meeting pointed out to me a few days later…

“For me the process almost seemed like a “going through the motions” or placation of the public. You know, throw the dog a bone. Everybody was polite, and perhaps that’s the Nebraska way, but everything that took place almost seemed like a pretty well orchestrated public relations initiative.

I found myself wondering who was there (the audience) and what was their motive for being there? The one thing I was waiting to come out, and it never did, is that the people of Nebraska are hurting and that’s why the revenues are down. I certainly didn’t get the impression that there was one Senator in there who had the backbone to make that statement and take action accordingly.”

Sadly, our elected officials in the legislative branch seem fine with the idea of playing “kick the can”. They will do only what they cannot avoid when it comes to cutting spending and leave future budget problems and future federal strings to be dealt with later, hopefully by others. The trouble is, when these folks leave office, we taxpayers will still be here, dealing with the mess.

In my next article on this topic, I will attempt to put the LR 542 late June meeting into the context of events that have occurred since.

In the meantime, the video below, while dealing with budget cuts proposed at one stage by President Obama, give some sense of the frustration felt by liberty-minded, limited government folks in observing our Unicameral at work:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;”

Article II of the Constitution pertains to the executive power of the President.

The Heritage Foundation’s blog, “The Foundry” reported Tuesday that the Obama Administration had submitted a report to the United Nations Human Rights High Commissioner entitled “Report of the United States of America“.

I appreciate that “The Foundry” brought this report to readers’ attention and I hope Heritage Foundation will undertake a review of the document. The blog post focuses on President Obama’s dissatisfaction with his own country and his repudiation of decisions made in regards to handling military combatants. But there are so many things to be disturbed about in this situation, it is hard to determine where one should place their focus.

For the moment, I will focus on the fact the report was submitted in the first place.  Early on, the text confirms it is the first time the US has participated in the UN Human Rights Council’s “Universal Periodic Review“. Is it because the UPR is a new program or there is a reason why the United States has not customarily submitted itself to such a review?

The program is not new; it was created in 2006.

It is quite clear that our current President does not have much respect for our Constitution. I would say he is ignornat of it, but that is simply not the case. He spent several years teaching the subject himself. And he is on the record as having clarity as to what it is all about. The fact is, he believes it is an unfortunate document.

As a sovereign nation with a Constitution that enumerates a specific list of powers to each branch of the federal government, the United States cannot subject itself to review by an outside entity. The most disturbing aspect of this report submission is the question it raises about whether or not it subjects the United States to the jurisdiction of the United Nations in any way.

As noted above in the Article II quote, President Obama does not have the Constitutional authority to enter the US into any relationship that encroaches on the Constitution. All legislative powers enumerated in the Constitution are vested in the Congress. As noted above, two-thirds of Senators must agree to any treaty the President would like to make.

The US has not traditionally subjected itself to review by any outside authority that would endanger its sovereignty, and for very good reason. The Constitution prohibits it. A 1956 Supreme Court decision, Reid v. Covert, articulates the whole subject of treaties:

“The obvious and decisive answer to this, of course, is that no agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution.

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights — let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition — to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.”

Again, the primary question is, does the submission by the Obama Administration of the report to the UN Human Rights Council subject the US to an outside jurisdiction?

Those who have the time should read the full report. It is most revealing of the philosophy of our President.

We shared the Jay Leno “Jaywalking” segment from the Fourth of July that exhibits multi-generational ignorance of American history. Leno had to ask Grandpa the history questions in order to illicit correct answers after bombing out with the middle-aged parents and school age child.

If the fundamental principles upon which our country was founded are not part of the popular culture, even periodically, considering our size and our immigrant heritage, what kind of culture do we have? A “multi-cultural” Balkans?

In addition to teaching the basics of American history in schools, the heritage of the country was once considered proper subject matter for TV, even in prime time.

Barney Fife tries to recite the Preamble to the Constitution:

Captain Kirk informs who the Constitution was written for:

By the late 70′s, the subject was largely relegated to the School House Rock series aired during the Saturday morning cartoon line up.

In his Farewell Address, Ronald Reagan warned about the problem. He noted that although over the course of his time in office, there was a reinvigorated optimism and sense of patriotism in America, it had not been institutionalized, especially in popular culture. The warning begins at 4:04 of the address, which can be viewed here.

President Reagan’s concerns about a loss of understanding the essence of America were valid. The question is: how do we solve the problem of a great void in our popular culture?

Recently the GiN “Whine List” focused on a group of 50 Lincolnites who showed up at a City Council meeting in green shirts to protest the proposed elimination of the City Forester position. For many years running, the City of Lincoln has been running budget deficits.

Unfortunately, too many city voters swallowed the bad information shoveled at them about the arena project and voted to ensure, not only that the City will remain awash in red ink for a very long time, but that essential spending on things such as streets will continue to be deferred. I recommend we all buy by a Big Foot truck and buckle up. Those potholes, ruts, washboards, and chunks of asphalt are here to stay, folks. (Yes, I am ranting about a pet peeve. More on that soon, I absolutely guarantee you.)

We’re up to our eyeballs in debt but have decided to go on a massive spending spree on an arena like a shopaholic on their final binge before filing bankruptcy, and are confronting yet another budget deficit.

Dart for Mayor Beutler

Mayor Chris Beutler painted himself into a nice little corner by declaring “a cleaner, greener Lincoln” and in little time at all, proved himself a hypocrite in suggesting the City Forester position be cut. What did he expect, for heaven’s sake? In order for Lincoln to be a model green city  we simply MUST have a tree supervisor. The only thing surprising is Beutler’s surprise at being confronted by angry citizens calling him a hypocrite.

Mayor Beutler most assuredly deserves a dart…right on the bullseye.

Dart for each member of the City Council

In this instance, there are plenty of darts to go around. Lincoln City Government provides a very target rich environment. As Deena Winters reported in her Lincoln Journal Star story on August 10, the City Council spent the bulk of a lengthy meeting on the subject of the City Forester.

From Winters’ report, the time they did not spend on that incredibly important matter was focused on a parade of angry people demanding one program or another not be cut and, drum roll, please…that taxes be increased instead. My favorite quote from the article:

“When you cut StarTran, you cut into people’s lives,” Jeff Altman said. “If you want to raise my taxes, I’m fine with that.”

I cannot determine from the LJS article, but it appears that the City Council was not very capable of resistance. They voted to restore the City Forester position in a fashion. It doesn’t appear either, but one does wonder: did they ask any of the people clamoring for taxes to be raised if they indeed are taxpayers themselves?

All things considered, the Lincoln City Council members are quite worthy of darts.

GiN better stock up. Most assuredly, there will be more to come.