It's nearing the end of the legislative session for 2011, at least for the statehouses in Lincoln and Des Moines.
We've been watching both state legislatures carefully this year, as examples of what to do, what not to do, and what can't - or shouldn't - be done at the state level.
In Nebraska, in spite of the ranting and raving of far too many on the political right that ANY increase in taxes would be too much, more revenue has been found. In fact, legislators in Nebraska overrode the governor's veto in order to ask Nebraskans to spend five bucks more a year for state park entry fees. The threat of a second veto override also cowed Nebraska's governor into signing a larger roads funding bill than had initially been expected.
Both bills gained bipartisan support, which surprised many observers from both sides of the aisle.
In Iowa, the theme of this year's legislative session seems to have been partisanship.
The legislature there remains at a standstill, on many key issues, with neither side willing to budge. Technically, the Iowa legislature is now past its original scheduled ending date. Most legislative staffers have already been released, as most people did not expect the session to continue this long. Still, three key bills have yet to be passed: the school funding bill, a proposed tax relief bill, and the Iowa state budget.
Extreme gridlock notwithstanding, we have seen significant compromise on some issues in Iowa this session.
Iowa's congressional redistricting efforts went extremely well, considering the state will be losing one member of its U.S. house delegation. Of course, Iowa also had the foresight over 25 years ago to install a nonpartisan redistricting process - so that issue was really a non-issue, even before this year's legislature met.
In comparison, Nebraska, which is losing no seats, appears to have its congressional redistricting headed to Federal court - incurring unnecessary expense for taxpayers - due to a highly partisan and illogical redrawing of the Nebraska congressional map.
Neither state legislature passed many bills this year, though not for lack of trying. Both states also passed some legislation which, in our opinion, is both questionable and offensive. Regardless of our opinion on the content of those bills, we think it's obvious what worked in both legislative bodies this year: compromise.
It's also obvious what didn't work, for both state legislatures: extremism, primarily from the political right.
In Nebraska, the insane insistence that no more revenue could be had - when it's obvious that was not the case - was a stupid, petty, and ultimately failed strategy by those who claim to be fiscally responsible. Their hypocrisy on that issue has now become disgustingly clear.
In Iowa, the hypocrisy continues, with a state strapped for funds, and a governor and Republican-majority house still insisting on massive tax cuts for businesses - while not allowing for any growth of budgets for schools. If no budget deal is made before Iowa's new fiscal year begins in July, the Republican governor and Republican House of Representatives (which is responsible for all spending bills), could be responsible for closing Iowa state parks on the Fourth of July, as well as the layoffs of thousands of workers during the height of summer.
Attempting to hold back a state's fiscal liabilities while not collecting enough revenue for its responsibilities is akin to trying to hold back the ocean while trying to hold down every grain of sand on a beach.
Doing so will only make you look foolish - and ultimately leave you all wet.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
This Ain't Gonna Be Pretty
Like it or not - and there are many people, including us at times, who don't - the U.S. really has only two major political parties. We'll agree that there are many other minority parties, including the Tea Party. However, like the old Big 8, American politics is dominated by two groups that take most of the energy, money, and attention, while everyone else is mostly relegated to the sidelines
That binary alignment in American politics often leads Americans to act more like fans of a particular sports team than citizens involved in solving the problems of our society, something we've decried many times before.
Today though, we're going to take the sporting approach for a reason.
Everyone knows the best sports match-ups happen when you have two teams who put their best players on the field - and the players on each team are a good match for their opponent's strengths and weaknesses.
Unfortunately, the match-ups we're beginning to see take shape for the 2012 political season are nothing like that. Frankly, for one of the two major political parties, they're embarrassing.
Take Newt Gingrich, for example.
A one-time power player for the Republican Party during the 1990's, Newt has returned to attempt to run for President in 2012. Even before he announced he was officially running this year, it was clear that Newt's stats would never match up well with the current GOP fan base.
For a party that continues to attempt to claim the mantle of family values party, Newt's record is a disaster. Three marriages, multiple affairs - including his affair with his high school teacher (who became his first wife), and serving divorce papers on ill women twice in his life make it incredibly unlikely that Newt will be the GOP's chosen star next year.
It hasn't helped that Newt's been blasting nearly everyone lately, Democrats and Republicans alike, on both sides of the field.
Another major GOP star, Mitt Romney, increasingly looks like this year's Wrong Way Corrigan.
Romney proudly held a position formerly held by most of the GOP, that Medicare for all Americans was unacceptable and socialist, but that universal health care with an individual mandate (which allows private health insurance companies to still be part of the system), was a great idea. In fact, Romney built his signature political achievement as Massachusetts governor on that idea.
Of course, Mitt is now running from his own healthcare plan as fast as his political legs will carry him. Don't even ask what Mr. Romney's position on abortion is. His answer will likely depend on which end of the political field he's running toward.
All this while the Democratic nominee for President in 2012 is the current President, who is primarily responsible for preventing an apocalyptic economic collapse (so far), who created or saved more jobs in 27 months than his predecessor did in eight years, and under whose watch and leadership the most wanted terrorist in American history was eliminated.
Some of our readers may think we're reveling in these potential matchups. They'd be wrong.
We'd rather see the two best individuals - evenly matched - debate fairly, cleanly, and solidly, and have the best candidate win.
Right now, it appears one side is bringing in the pros, while the other side is bringing in the rejected players from the local high school YMCA team.
We'd hide our eyes if we weren't so afraid we might miss something.
That binary alignment in American politics often leads Americans to act more like fans of a particular sports team than citizens involved in solving the problems of our society, something we've decried many times before.
Today though, we're going to take the sporting approach for a reason.
Everyone knows the best sports match-ups happen when you have two teams who put their best players on the field - and the players on each team are a good match for their opponent's strengths and weaknesses.
Unfortunately, the match-ups we're beginning to see take shape for the 2012 political season are nothing like that. Frankly, for one of the two major political parties, they're embarrassing.
Take Newt Gingrich, for example.
A one-time power player for the Republican Party during the 1990's, Newt has returned to attempt to run for President in 2012. Even before he announced he was officially running this year, it was clear that Newt's stats would never match up well with the current GOP fan base.
For a party that continues to attempt to claim the mantle of family values party, Newt's record is a disaster. Three marriages, multiple affairs - including his affair with his high school teacher (who became his first wife), and serving divorce papers on ill women twice in his life make it incredibly unlikely that Newt will be the GOP's chosen star next year.
It hasn't helped that Newt's been blasting nearly everyone lately, Democrats and Republicans alike, on both sides of the field.
Another major GOP star, Mitt Romney, increasingly looks like this year's Wrong Way Corrigan.
Romney proudly held a position formerly held by most of the GOP, that Medicare for all Americans was unacceptable and socialist, but that universal health care with an individual mandate (which allows private health insurance companies to still be part of the system), was a great idea. In fact, Romney built his signature political achievement as Massachusetts governor on that idea.
Of course, Mitt is now running from his own healthcare plan as fast as his political legs will carry him. Don't even ask what Mr. Romney's position on abortion is. His answer will likely depend on which end of the political field he's running toward.
All this while the Democratic nominee for President in 2012 is the current President, who is primarily responsible for preventing an apocalyptic economic collapse (so far), who created or saved more jobs in 27 months than his predecessor did in eight years, and under whose watch and leadership the most wanted terrorist in American history was eliminated.
Some of our readers may think we're reveling in these potential matchups. They'd be wrong.
We'd rather see the two best individuals - evenly matched - debate fairly, cleanly, and solidly, and have the best candidate win.
Right now, it appears one side is bringing in the pros, while the other side is bringing in the rejected players from the local high school YMCA team.
We'd hide our eyes if we weren't so afraid we might miss something.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Pigeon Governor
As we discussed yesterday, there are those in the state of Nebraska who are currently overreaching, politically. Sadly, they're displaying the kind of blind partisanship that can transition seamlessly into "political corruption." While that description applied to yesterday's discussion of redistricting, it also applies to today's subject matter - the ongoing war against workers' rights.
Those who know the current Nebraska Republican Party and its recent history - that of attempting to forcibly pass anti-worker legislation in violation of the state constitution - also likely recognize the methods of its de facto leader, Governor Dave Heineman.
To us, Heineman's methods resemble those of a pigeon.
In some workplaces, there are leaders who are sometimes known as "pigeon bosses." That title refers to a person in a nominal leadership position who swoops in after most of the hard work is done, craps all over the project, ruffles everyone's feathers, and then flies away to go screw something else up.
On Monday, Governor Heineman shook his proverbial tailfeathers at a bill that has drawn passionate debate from legislators who favor workers' rights as well as from those who oppose workers' rights. The debates on that bill, LB397, have often been ugly.
Even in the face of contentious discussion, for most of the last year, both Democratic and Republican legislators from across the state of Nebraska have worked together in an attempt to update the rules governing the state labor court that is the Nebraska Commission on Industrial Relations.
It's been difficult to find an effective and fair way through this problem. Yet, the hard-fought compromise bill to update the CIR recently won unanimous first-round approval - a truly rare achievement in our politically polarized country.
On Monday, Governor Heineman swooped into the public discussion of the bill and insisted that if the changes he wants to be made to the labor bill aren't made in the second round, he's going to veto the bill and scuttle the whole process.
State Senator Steve Lathrop, who has worked on the bill from the beginning, noted that Governor Heineman has not participated in the development of the bill at all.
As we've said many, many, many times before, the soul of good government is compromise. It's clear from the first-round vote tally that the current bill governing the update to the CIR is a good compromise.
In our current American political environment, where nearly everything is hyper-polarized, we believe it's a wise idea for any leader who wishes to leave a positive legacy to identify areas where legitimate compromise is being made - and then have the wisdom to stand back and let that compromise occur.
Or, as any real Nebraskan would say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. On the update of the CIR, we think it's quite obvious that the legislature has already fixed the issue - meaning Governor Heineman needs to fly away, and leave the issue alone.
Those who know the current Nebraska Republican Party and its recent history - that of attempting to forcibly pass anti-worker legislation in violation of the state constitution - also likely recognize the methods of its de facto leader, Governor Dave Heineman.
To us, Heineman's methods resemble those of a pigeon.
In some workplaces, there are leaders who are sometimes known as "pigeon bosses." That title refers to a person in a nominal leadership position who swoops in after most of the hard work is done, craps all over the project, ruffles everyone's feathers, and then flies away to go screw something else up.
On Monday, Governor Heineman shook his proverbial tailfeathers at a bill that has drawn passionate debate from legislators who favor workers' rights as well as from those who oppose workers' rights. The debates on that bill, LB397, have often been ugly.
Even in the face of contentious discussion, for most of the last year, both Democratic and Republican legislators from across the state of Nebraska have worked together in an attempt to update the rules governing the state labor court that is the Nebraska Commission on Industrial Relations.
It's been difficult to find an effective and fair way through this problem. Yet, the hard-fought compromise bill to update the CIR recently won unanimous first-round approval - a truly rare achievement in our politically polarized country.
On Monday, Governor Heineman swooped into the public discussion of the bill and insisted that if the changes he wants to be made to the labor bill aren't made in the second round, he's going to veto the bill and scuttle the whole process.
State Senator Steve Lathrop, who has worked on the bill from the beginning, noted that Governor Heineman has not participated in the development of the bill at all.
As we've said many, many, many times before, the soul of good government is compromise. It's clear from the first-round vote tally that the current bill governing the update to the CIR is a good compromise.
In our current American political environment, where nearly everything is hyper-polarized, we believe it's a wise idea for any leader who wishes to leave a positive legacy to identify areas where legitimate compromise is being made - and then have the wisdom to stand back and let that compromise occur.
Or, as any real Nebraskan would say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. On the update of the CIR, we think it's quite obvious that the legislature has already fixed the issue - meaning Governor Heineman needs to fly away, and leave the issue alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)