Greg Awtry

Nebraskans are lucky to have two extremely qualified candidates running for the open U.S. Senate seat left vacant by the retiring Ben Nelson. Until now State Senator Deb Fischer and former Senator Bob Kerrey have been campaigning solo across our state. That ended when the two faced off in a debate staged at the Nebraska State Fair in Grand Island.

If you took the time to go to, listen to, or watch this first debate, it wouldn’t take long to see these two candidates are focused squarely on the issues, and for a political junkie, it was a refreshing to finally see two candidates discuss America instead of each other.

They openly spoke with passion about Nebraska and their love of this great country. The issues of experience, public service, rural versus urban, or Kerry’s stint away from Nebraska, are no longer in question. They agree on little politically, but there is no question they are on the same page when it comes to their desires to help our nation through difficult times and to lay down a path for a prosperous future. Their paths though, travel very different routes.

Fischer is a self-admitted smaller government candidate, focusing on the core fundamentals of government. Kerry, on the other hand is one quick to turn to federal programs on a wide range of issues. Fischer wants lower taxes, while Kerry wants higher taxes. Both want to reform entitlements albeit it in different ways. Both say they will work across party lines, but then all candidates say that… few actually do it.

Kerry is smart. Fischer is tough. Kerry seems stuck in the nineties, referencing the past many times during the debate, while Fischer seems firmly positioned in the present. Neither gave a clear vision of the future during the debate.

I listened to every word. They seemed to disagree about TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline, but when pressured a bit, both are in favor. Kerry is more of a wind energy guy, Fischer a drill baby drill position, although both believe in alternate forms of energy production, especially ethanol.

They have major differences on immigration. Kerrey more along the traditional liberal lines of pathways to citizenship and Fischer stressing border security and employment enforcement.

But as I listened to everything from their opening to their closing remarks I couldn’t help but focus on a statement Bob Kerrey made in both his opening and closing. He said he promised to “narrow the gap between rich and poor”. What exactly does he propose? It is eerily similar to the “redistribute the wealth” talk we hear about President Obama. But it was important enough to Kerrey to mention it in his first and his last comments.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it claim government’s responsibility is to “narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.” It is not a fundamental role of government to control the amount of wealth one may or may not accumulate in their lifetime. Although there are many things one can find to agree with regarding Kerrey’s positions on issues, this reoccurring comment about narrowing the gap is very revealing. He must expand on this promise.

We know he favors Obamacare. We know he favors the federal department of education. We know he favors more government than we can afford. We know he wants to raise taxes. And now we know that he wants to use the senate to help him reduce the gap between the rich and the poor. What we don’t know is how and at what cost to the taxpayers.

As the next few months unfold, beware of campaign promises. As these two candidates come to your town, seek them out, ask questions, make them be specific about not only how they can make campaign promises a reality but how much will it cost, and more importantly, ask them if we can afford it.

At one point in the debate, Kerrey said it would take only a high school chemistry class to figure out we are undergoing man-made climate change. I would remind Kerrey that a Nebraska grade school student could figure out with their lunch money that borrowing $4 billion a day to fund a government we cannot afford is a more immediate threat and a larger government is not the answer.

Follow Greg on Twitter, @YNTgreg Facebook and read his Blog

Open letter to: Nebraska Governor Heineman and Nebraska’s Washington delegation Representatives Smith, Fortenberry and Terry, Senators Nelson and Johanns, Senate candidates Fischer and Kerrey, House candidate John Ewing and Speaker Flood,

All of you are aware of the controversy surrounding TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline. I personally want to thank Governor Heinemann for calling a special session of the Nebraska Unicameral to look into the matter of routing this pipeline through our state.

I would also remind him that his August 2011 letter to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton said, “…I believe that the pipeline should not cross a substantial portion of the Ogallala Aquifer.” He goes on to mention the aquifer five times in his brief letter, ending by saying “Do not allow TransCanada to build a pipeline over the Ogallala Aquifer and risk the potential damage to Nebraska’s water.” Governor, where do you stand now in regards to the pipe crossing the Aquifer?

Representative Adrian Smith, you have been completely AWOL on the subject, responding identically when asked on two separate occasions by the York News-Times what your position was regarding this pipeline. You said you would trust the science. Well, Congressman Smith, the science is falling short and the facts are these high pressure tar sand pipelines are leaking all over the place, the most notable being the million gallon spill into the Kalamazoo River in Michigan, others along Keystone 1, another in Wisconsin, and even more tar sand pipelines spills in Canada.

Representative Terry, do you even have a clue to the position your own House of Representatives and the Internal Revenue Service took on tar sand? Terry wrote a letter on May 8th this year to key members in the Senate and the House urging, “the Keystone XL pipeline be built quickly and properly through the transportation bill.” In his letter he indicated the pipe would transport oil, petroleum products and Canadian crude. According to an IRS Technical Advice Memorandum a year earlier, the House Ways and Means Committee ruled that tar sand is not oil, petroleum product or crude, and therefore not subject to the excise tax to fund the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. This will save the producers and refiners about $20 million a year on Keystone XL alone. That $20 million which won’t be paid into the Oil Spill Trust Fund, thanks to the House’s ruling.

At least one Nebraska Congressman has heard the people in this regard. Fortenberry, you have repeatedly called for a slow down so more studies can be conducted. And oh my, how right you look now, in light of the National Transportation and Safety Board’s (NTSB) scathing criticism of the entire tar sand high pressure pipeline regulations and PHMSA, the administration which oversees America’s underground pipes. Fortenberry, you understand that the Nebraska people don’t want to be test dummies for more of these bursting pipelines.

Senator’s Johanns and Nelson, you have been little help other than squabbling among yourselves on whether the state has any rights in routing such a pipeline. Nelson said the states do; Johanns said it is a federal matter. It turns out Nelson was right, but Nebraska had been negligent in their foresight and didn’t have citing legislation on the books as other states had done.

Speaker Flood, you missed the boat entirely when you were initially opposed to a special session and seemed willing to let the U.S. Department of State work this out with TransCanada and step all over Nebraskans. The people pushed back and you finally met with the TransCanada folks in Norfolk and there, you completely missed the opportunity to stand firm and demand this pipeline avoid the aquifer. TransCanada blew some smoke saying they would build it even safer than the “safest pipeline ever built”, which seemed to be a bit of an oxymoron, and you agreed. Avoid a couple of Sandhills in Northern Holt County and all aquifer concerns seemed to disappear.

The entire Keystone XL issue in regards to Nebraska has become a much larger issue than fragile soils, rivers and aquifers. It is now the centerpiece and shining example of what civic duty and responsibility means to a society when their leaders refuse to listen to their concerns about safety, not only of their own water, but the water supplies that turned this once Great American Desert into one of most productive food suppliers in the entire world.

The IRS’s determination of the House’s ruling that this is not crude oil is correct. It is diluted bitumen; a highly toxic and poisonous concoction laced with benzene, which is a known cancer-causing agent. The House’s Ways and Means Committee ruling is insane, saying this is not oil or a petroleum product and therefore not subject to the tax in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

The NTSB report on the Michigan spill basically said we are not yet ready for pipelines of this type from a regulatory and safety perspective. They published at least nineteen recommendations that must occur before we proceed down this path.

So, we are about to make a decision. Are we basing it solely on TransCanada claims of jobs and taxes and energy independence? Their motive is crystal clear. They want to make billions for their stockholders. The delay has given us the time to learn that much if this “oil” is owned by foreign countries and will be exported. The delay has given us the chance to learn that Canadian tar sand oil being piped through our country will not be contributing to the Oil Spill Fund. The delay has given the NTSB a chance to review the process and lack of safety and response regulations. The delay has shed new light on this dangerous plan.

And everyone in this state owes a huge thank you to the landowners and organizations that forced the overambitious politicians to take a second look. If not for these courageous folks, who seem a lot more concerned about Nebraska’s safety than anyone we elected to protect our interests, this would have been a done deal.

Here’s what must happen before we proceed.

First: Smith, Fortenberry and Terry, you must make the House Ways and Means Committee change their ruling that tar sand is not oil, and that tar sand producers and refiners pay into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

Second: Heineman, you must deny the re-route based on the NTSB findings and wait until all their regulations are passed with proper legislation and tested for effectiveness.

Third: Johanns and Nelson, or Fisher or Kerrey, (depending on the election), if you are concerned about the safety of Nebraska citizens, you must put full court pressure on the President and the State Department to deny approval of the Keystone XL permit until the NTSB recommendations have been implemented.

Forth: Flood, if you truly want to be the next governor of Nebraska, you need to put the safety of the citizens and economic interests of our state above everything else. You can begin by listening to the proud Nebraskans who want to preserve our water and soil for generations to come.

Fifth: TransCanada, you need to stand up to your claim of being a “Good Neighbor” and find an alternative route, avoiding the Ogallala Aquifer, to get your foreign customers’ oil to the world market.

I could make a very long list of Nebraskans who have shown remarkable courage in the fight to protect Nebraska. They have withstood intense criticism, suffered the name-calling, yet continue to fight for all of us. They know who they are, and in my world, people who sacrifice their own self to protect others are called heroes.

I urge our political leaders to put the safety of our citizens and the preservation of our natural resources above all else and join them in their fight. I urge our readers to let the politicians know how you feel, pro, con or otherwise. This is a lasting decision which will have major consequences to all Nebraskans as well as set precedent for the future. Let your voices be heard. It is the Nebraska way.

Senator Nelson’s weekly column for the last week of June 2012 says, “Nebraska is an agriculture state. Our economy and thousands and thousands of jobs depend on how well agriculture is doing…” Discussing the new Farm Bill, Nelson talks about Nebraska’s corn, beans, beef, ethanol, even popcorn. He says in 2010, commodities alone brought cash receipts to Nebraska totaling more than $17 Billion!

Over a fifty year period, that number in today’s dollars explodes to $850 Billion! And that is just the cash flowing into Nebraska from the sale of crops and livestock. That incredible number doesn’t include the commerce associated with agricultural operations, like jobs, equipment sales, and taxes. It is a safe bet to say Nebraska’s past, present and future are dependent on agricultural.

How is this possible? Wasn’t this land called the Great American Desert? President Jefferson called it an immense and trackless desert.  In 1823, during a government survey, geographer Edwin James wrote, “I do not hesitate in giving the opinion, that it is almost wholly unfit for cultivation, and of course, uninhabitable by a people depending upon agriculture for their subsistence.”

What happened? The Ogallala Aquifer is what happened! Well, it didn’t just happen, it had been forming for eons, but it was discovered in the mid 1800s, and as they say, the rest is history. Nebraska became and still is one of the most fertile food producing regions on the planet.

Now what are we thinking when we even consider running a toxic oil pipeline right over, and right through in some cases, the only thing that keeps Nebraska from turning into a desert again? I simply can’t believe the landowners would have any part of this, yet many have. I can’t believe any politician, from a county official to the state legislature, to the U.S. House and Senate would have anything to do with this, yet most have. I can’t believe any scientist, geologist, or any agronomist would ever consider running this right through the Ogallala Aquifer would be the right thing to do, yet many have.

Are all these people willing to bet our future on a half inch of steel, as pointed out by Cindy Myers, a homeowner near the pipe’s route? For the next fifty years are we actually going to gamble on a half inch of steel that could jeopardize an $850 billion dollar future!

Oh, but TransCanada’s Alex Pourbaix’s letter to the York News-Times, published on June 22, 2012, tries to point out that Nebraska should be thankful for the, “construction of Keystone XL will result in $468 million in new spending, increase personal income by $314 million and increase state and local tax revenues by more than $11 million. Once operational, the pipeline is expected to provide $152 million in property taxes to county and other local governments over its lifetime.”

Add all TransCanada’s numbers together and it comes to less than two 10^ths of one percent of the $850 billion dollars agriculture will bring to the state of Nebraska (over the pipeline’s lifetime), almost completely due to the Ogallala Aquifer.

TransCanada understands energy. They see a pipeline ending at Port Arthur, Texas, spewing billions of dollars out in their effort to help supply a world addicted to oil, and why shouldn’t they, that’s their business.

Nebraskans understand agriculture. We see a vast fertile land, made possible by the fresh waters of the Ogallala Aquifer, that can help feed the world, and why shouldn’t we, it’s our business.

TransCanada can get oil to the port without crossing the Ogallala Aquifer. We can’t feed the world without it.

Move the route off the Aquifer now! Or, risk the future livelihood of the state of Nebraska on a half inch of steel? What’s it going to be Nebraskans? What’s it going to be Governor Heineman? What’s it going to be Mr. President?

(Editor’s
note: To post comments to Nebraska’s
Department of Environmental Quality regarding the Keystone XL, go to: https://ecmp.nebraska.gov/deq-seis/PostComment.aspx
or, you can email the DEQ directly at: NDEQ.SEISpubliccomment@Nebraska.gov
)

Follow Greg on Twitter, Facebook and read his Blog

Senators Ben Nelson and Mike Johanns, both former Nebraska governors, both intelligent men, and both want to do the same thing on a critical issue. Interest rates for college loans are currently at 3.4%, established by law in 2007. The law made it possible for the federal government to subsidize loans at a higher rate.

Now the law is set to expire in a couple months. The rates, if Congress does nothing, will double to 6.8%. Well, both Nelson and Johanns both want to do something and extend the 3.8% rate. But we have a problem, and it is a perfect microcosm of the sorry condition our
nation’s capital is in right now.

The problem lies in how we are going to pay for it. Johanns wants to pay for it by eliminating a fund created by the 2010 health care law. Johanns says the other idea supported by Nelson,
which was voted on and defeated, would place new taxes on small businesses and raid funds that would otherwise go to shore up the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

Nelson counters by saying, “This has nothing at all to do with taxing job creators. This is a targeted provision to eliminate a glaring tax loop hole that both Democrats and Republicans have identified as an obvious and unjust shelter to people making an awful lot of money.”

So there you have it. Both senators want to fix it. They can’t agree how to pay for it. We get stuck with the same old problem. It is a politicized cycle that has frozen Washington
in their own tracks. The bottom line is that the work of the American people is not getting done as it should be. And we are mad.

On May 4, 2012, Rasmussen Poll reported that Congress has an 8% approval rating. They should have reported it as a 92% disapproval rating. And who and where are these 8% who actually believe Congress is doing a good job?

Example number two: May 7, 2012, Johanns writes a column, “No Budget Demonstrates Lack of Leadership”. Johanns says, “Congress is literally required by law to pass a budget every year. Yet each year since 2009, the Senate has neglected to do so.” He goes on to say, “Some have
suggested last year’s Budget Control Act represents a sufficient substitute for an actual budget.” But he adds that the Senate Parliamentarian says it is not an official budget.

A couple days later, on May 10, 2012, Senator Ben Nelson writes a column titled, “The thousand day budget myth”. Nelson says we do have a budget of sorts and that, “It’s a myth to say Congress does not have a budget.  We do – we effectively have one for a decade.” He is referring to the Budget Control Act passed in lieu of an actual Budget Resolution.

I am not going to judge who is right and who is wrong. I cite these two examples, the college loan interest rates, and the federal budget as examples of how inept Washington has become. They can’t agree to do something as simple as tending to the interest rates and they can’t even agree as to whether the government has a budget or not.

Is it any wonder 92% of us disapprove of Congress? Ben says one thing to us. Mike says the opposite. Who do we believe? When we can’t tell who is being truthful, we tend to doubt them all.

The people want action. We want solutions. We want them working together, but how?

I have an idea, and since we can’t throw the bums out all at once, and since there are no federa term limits, (both good ideas in my book), it is clear to everyone west of the beltway that they have to work together to solve this country’s problems.

I suggest the Domino’s Theory. Here’s how it works. You take one issue at a time. Let’s start wit the student loan issue. Seems everyone is in agreement and wants to keep the rates low, yet the still are unable to fix it.

You lock down both the Senate and House chambers with the members inside them. You fill the Rotunda with Domino’s pizza and install a red “Hot-Line” telephone. You post capitol police at each entrance to stop any legislator from leaving. Senators and Representatives can only call the Rotunda Hot Line for pizza, and they can’t come out until they reach a solution.

This may take a couple hours, a couple days, or a couple weeks. Do you know what? We really don’t care! Once they emerge with a solution, we will give them a day to return calls and emails, then back in they go the following day with issue number two! (The budget would be a good issue number two!)

Lock the doors again, calls only allowed for pizza, nobody comes or goes until they have a solution.

In all fairness to the “redistribution of wealth folks”, I would recommend we change pizza vendors at that time too. Maybe bring in Pizza Hut, Little Caesars’, and so on. This would keep the pizza lobbyists at bay, while Congress does what we sent them there to do.

You may have a better idea on how we can make Congress work together. If you do, I want to know. Let’s share a couple in the paper. Remember, there are no bad ideas, so send them to me. If you think your idea is ridiculous, keep in mind, I just floated out the Domino’s Pizza Theory, which sets the bar pretty low. I know you have a better idea.

Let’s have them. What is your idea to get Congress working together? Here’s my email address. Look forward to hearing from you.  greg.awtry@yorknewstimes.com

Follow Greg on Twitter, Facebook

Monday, April 16, Ben Nelson said, “I’m voting for the Buffett Rule, first and
foremost, to reduce the deficit and bring down the debt.”

The $4.5 billion this tax increase would bring in every year would cover about eleven
hours of government spending. (We spend about $10 billion a day, borrow $4 billion a day.)

This entire “Buffet Rule” shines a laser beam on the real problem. It is not that we
under tax, it is that we over spend. There is absolutely no way we can “tax”
our way out of this crisis.

After the measure was smartly defeated in the Senate, President Obama said he will continue
to fight for the middle class. What exactly did he mean? Was he inferring the
Buffet Rule was good for the middle class? How would raising taxes on the
wealthy be good for the middle class?

Obama continually talks about the Buffet Rule making it fairer by making the wealthy
and middle class pay the same percentage. (Why doesn’t he just lower the middle
class taxes instead? That will make them pay the same percentage too.)

Although Nelson mentioned additional spending cuts necessary to get our fiscal house in
order, both he and Obama are missing the real crisis. It is over spending.

We must face the crisis head on instead of playing politics.

Follow Greg on Twitter, Facebook