Governor Dave reprimands Jane Kleeb

At a press conference today, Governor Dave Heineman responded to reporters Martha Stoddard and Fred Knapp about the tactics of Bold Nebraska’s Jane Kleeb regarding the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline:

“(Her)aggressive, partisan, attack style politics don’t serve Nebraska very well.”

As reported by Joe Jordan, Heineman went on to say that:

“if Kleeb wants to make changes she needs to find a new approach.”


Of course Heineman is just pointing out the reality.

Kleeb, a self proclaimed expert on nutrition, with her liberal political group Bold Nebraska, has been leading marches and letter writing and ads against the “dirty tar sands oil”.

(You know, as opposed to that “clean” oil everywhere else.)

Their agenda, from day one, has been to get rid of ALL oil — and especially the oil from Canada.

The pipeline has simply been their favored method of demonizing the whole process. Kleeb herself has said that their goal is not a “safe” pipeline. It is NO pipeline.

Let’s repeat that:
Their goal is not a “safe” pipeline. It is NO pipeline.

So what do they do? They propose bills in the legislature that would put strict liability on TransCanda for any pipeline damage — even if by eco-terrorists.

Does that sense? Of course not. But then Kleeb attacks the legislature for not listening to “experts” (do nutrition “experts” count?) — essentially calling them a bunch of hayseeds.

Of course, Kleeb doesn’t mention that an expert — one on ground water, from UNL — specifically stated that “When people say the whole Ogallala Aquifer is at risk, they’re wrong.”

And here’s the thing:

Even as gas prices approach four bucks a gallon…
And there is a plan, supported by military veterans, to get oil from someplace other than the Mideast or Venezuela…
And there is a plan to create jobs with it…

…Jane Kleeb would be against a pipeline where ever it is.

If it was moved to only to be routed over solid granite, with a Canadian with a mop stationed every ten feet, they would STILL oppose it.

Because they don’t like the tar sands oil — or any oil at all.

They will be flying their windmill powered jets to lobby in Washington, DC, you see.

**UPDATE 3/17/11**

More via Joe Jordan:


The full quote from national political analyst Larry Sabato on the 2012 Senate race, FWIW:

Atty. Gen. Jon Bruning, could have enough strength to bring Nelson down. Recently, state treasurer Don Stenberg, who lost to Nelson in the 2000 contest, announced a challenge to Bruning, but few think he will succeed given his earlier defeat.


And hey, a little shout-out from CNN (H/T Micah Mertes) to the St. Paddy’s Day partiers in O’Neill, Nebraska:

On St. Patrick’s Day, the city of about 4,000 doubles its population, with visitors flocking to see the painting of the shamrock (it gets a fresh coat of paint every year just before the main celebrations), O’Neill’s grand parade (scheduled this year for Saturday, March 19), Green Eggs and Ham — a children’s breakfast that features green scrambled eggs — and other activities.

They point out that you can see the O’Neill shamrock — painted on the road — via Google Maps.

We checked. Yup.


  1. Get Down Goblin says:

    Jane Flemming Kleeb is about as effective in politics as Jan Terri is as a pop singer. Google the videos, I see the resemblance.

  2. Macdaddy says:

    Big deal about the shamrock. You can see dead people in Rio on Google maps. You can see manhole covers on Google maps.

  3. Oh Mander says:

    Has anyone bothered to crunch the numbers on the alleged economic gain for Nebraska, or are we still sticking with the same anecdotal evidence that this will be good for the state? If so, can someone please steer me to it?

    If you want to convice people that this pipleline is good for Nebraska, offer us something of substance rather than the same tired generalizations like “it will create jobs,” “Middle East = bad,” and “the troops support, so should you.”

  4. To Meander Mander says:

    If you want to convince people that this pipleline is BAD for Nebraska, offer us something of substance rather than the same tired generalizations like “it’s bad for the environment,” “oil = bad,” and “Bold Nebraska says its bad so you should think its bad too.”

    What is JFK’s degree in????

  5. Nate says:

    To Meandar Mander: Her Facebook page indicates that she pursued Religious Studies, Women & Gender Studies, and Leadership Studies at Stetson University, and International Ed. & Training, Non-Profit Management, and Advocacy at American University.

  6. Anonymous says:

    How dare the Governor question a Women’s Studies’ major’s political tactics! Here’s one for Joe Jordan: ask Janer about her friendship with the “Bosselmans'”; yeah could be those Big Oil Bosselmans. It would be so damn easy to tear down this house of cards if Nebraska’s media would only do their job.

  7. gi jane says:

    So let me get this straight. So if I want an expert on transgender leadership in non profits, Jane would be an expert

  8. RWP says:

    The pipeline barely crosses the aquifer. Furtermore, ground waterflow in the Sandhills is west to east. Even if here were a spill in the tiny portion of the pipeline flowing through the Sandhills, it would flow east. It might contaminate some Niobrara River streamfeeds, but that would be it.

    I pointed this out to Jane. She didn’t reply. Maybe Women’s Studies doesn’t cover hydrodynamics.

    Manufactured controversy. Johanns lost my support by playong along with it.

  9. Julie Schmit-Albin says:

    Jane is always yammering at me and others about supporting prenatal funding for indigent Moms. And what does Jane do? Schedules a pipeline press conference in the Rotunda right during the prenatal bill hearing in the Health Committee! Nebraska Right to Life testifed today for LB 599. Where was Jane and Bull Nebraska?

  10. Oh My says:

    Hey, Julie, did you testify? And did you say the Govenor was wrong? Or did you yet again avoid heaping any criticism on your lord and master?

  11. Bold Nebraska Film Festival says:

    Please join us in Hastings next month for Bold Nebraska’s First “Children of the Earth Film Festival”. The purpose of which is to present films that represent the causes Bold Nebraska cares about.

    The films to be shown are
    “Norma Rae”
    “The China Syndrome”
    “Silent Running”
    “Soylent Green”
    “An Inconvenient Truth”
    “Brokeback Mountain”

    If you feel any other films should be shown, please let us know.

  12. Kortezzi says:

    Jane F-ing Kleeb needs to get a life. We have thousands of miles of pipelines around Nebraska already, including many that go over acquifers. Give me some examples of spills in Nebraska from pipelines. I’ve heard of NONE. Surely Jane & Co would have found some big spills if there were any, so I’m confident there haven’t been any.

    How can anyone seriously oppose efforts to replace Mideast oil with Canadian oil? Do you want to keep doing business w/ the Venezuelas and the Saudis forever? Do you want $5 or $6 gas? Not me. I said full speed ahead on building the Keystone XL.

  13. Uncle Wiggily says:

    Those of you who ridicule/minimize Jane Kleeb do so at your peril … she is smart (much smarter than hubby Scooter), tough, and, most importantly, utterly ruthless. She has no core principles other than a primeval need for self-aggrandizement. She will bounce from one cause celebre to the next with abandon – just as long as it involves lots of attention and publicity for herself. Does anyone seriously believe she ran for a position on the school board of a small Nebraska town because she actually cared about the education of children? I don’t thiiiink so … can you say “stepping stone”?

    She is that most dangerous of all political breeds – clever, attractive, amoral, and stupefyingly ambitious. Just take a look at what we have in the White House … different race than Jane, different gender than Jane … but in all other ways they are philosophical clones. That oughta just scare the bejeezus out of all of us …

  14. Anonymous says:

    UW: I’ll give you ruthless and ambitious, but smart? Maybe some street smarts but she’s no great political mind. If she was she would suppress her desire to be in the news every day and realize that even her incessant media plays will eventually get old with Nebraska’s press. Once she has no free media platform, her non-existent grassroots, a/k/a astroturf, will not be enough to propel her issues. Giving it one year till the newly-found federal energy dollars stop flowing to Scott’s business, then they’re outta here.

  15. Oh Mander says:

    @ Meander and Kleeb’s Foot Oil

    Nowhere in my post did I say “oil is bad” or any of the other anti-pipeline talking points. I use oil everyday and recognize the hypocrisy in this anti-oil campaign amongst the “environmentalists.” I also cringe everytime someone spouts the “it puts our country’s water supply at risk” argurment becuase I know better. My point is this: Transcanada and pro-pipeline people are the ones asking for a favor, so it’s their job to make a good case for it. A left-leaning administration is holding all of the cards here, so it is up to Transcanada, a foreign entity looking to increase its foreign bottom line, to show the US why we should embrace their plan, especially since they could utilize an exisiting pipeline corridor if they were willing to shell out a few extra bucks.

    My request was simple – point me to evidence that shows the pipleine is good for the US and Nebraska as opposed to good for Transcanada and the US oil companies that will do the refining. Numbers, studies, something! Don’t just tell me that it’s good and expect me to believe it.

  16. greg says:

    I agree with Bob Nelson on this one. Let them move it to another corridor.
    They are going to be making millions off this pipeline, so I think they can afford a little extra in up-front costs. It’s not too much to ask to keep it out of the Sand Hills.
    If they are not going to even work with us, then go take a hike.

  17. RWP says:

    Well, it’s good for Nebraska because they will be paying landowners for the easements and property tax to the counties. That’s aside from the benefits of increased gasoline availability. And the risk is truly minimal. This sort of heavy bitumenous crude is not going to diffuse very quickly, even if it were spilled in the 20 mile or so pipeline run through the most northeasterly edge of the Sandhills; and if it did get into the Sandhills water table, it would move east to northeast, eventually draining into the Missouri, not west towards the body of the Ogallala aquifer.

    It’s good for the US because refiners are paying corporate tax and employing Americans. And because it’s cheaper for the refiners to sell the end products to us than to ship them overseas.

    All these points are being made. The local media don’t find the basic and rather mundane principles of economics and hydrology nearly as exciting as protests.

    Me, I’m heavily invested in crude oil. I’d far prefer we shut this thing down. The scarcer oil is, the more RWP likes it.

  18. Nate says:

    I’m with Uncle Wiggily on this. Jane appears to be taking the long view on building a legitimate base in Nebraska while marginalizing the GOP. The Hastings school board stint is almost certainly just a resume padder, an attempt to build some cred as an elected official so that she can target higher office. Meanwhile, she mounts a ruthless social media campaign that Saul Alinsky would stamp with his approval. That much is evident in how she describes almost every Nebraska GOP politician that submits a bill she doesn’t like or opposes her pet causes. It’s not enough for her to simply disagree with them; she constantly pushes a narrative that they’re “fringe.” She probably uses that word more than any other on her Twitter feed.

    That’s not the sort of thing that should be casually dismissed.

  19. Obvious says:

    Mander – how about this:

    1. $150 million in NE property tax revenue
    2. hundreds of family-supporting (as in full healthcare, retirement, etc.) jobs for Nebraskans
    3. hotels, motels and restaurants filled in small towns throughout the pipeline route while constructing
    4. Access to oil that isn’t coming on a boat or from an offshore drill
    5. Access to oil that isn’t coming from a nation that hates the US
    6. More accessible supply = lower gas prices
    7. Less reliance on antagonistic foriegn sources of oil = less instances of sending our kids to war

  20. Greg2 says:


    Here’s a statistic for you, Tunisia, Government overthrown. Egypt, government overthrown. Lybia, riots in the streets, government bombing its citizens. Bahrain, citizen revolt being quashed by military from Sadui Arabia. Saudi Arabia, “day of rage protests”. Iran, violently crushing any opposition to the supreme mullah. Syria, violent protest in the streets. Venezuela, nationalized oil industry, nationalized phone industry, made NGO’s register with his office so that humanitarian money cannot be spent to “overthrow” him.

    Canada, polite, neighborly, no citizen uprising in the streets, no government crack down on protests, wants to supply the United States with oil.

    On February 14, 2011 WTI oil was below $85/barrel. Today WTI oil is above $101/barrel.
    Brent Crude on February 14th, 2011 was below $103/barrel. Today Brent Crude is $110/barrel.

    I think Canadian oil is probably a better substitute than 40% of the oil supply coming from countries who have violent dictators who are not afraid to spill the blood innocent civilians all in the name of Allah.

  21. Oh Mander says:

    Obvious and RWP:

    Thanks but no thanks. All you did was write stuff in a box. Where is this info from? Where did you get $150 million in tax revenue? That sounds like it could have come from the study I’m looking for, but an anomymous blog poster doesn’t really meet my standard for a reliable source. Who says the refined products will even be sold in the US? I’ve heard the same type of anecdotal evidence that it won’t, so who is right? Who says pipeline construction workers will get full benefits? Who says that gas prices will go down? Who says that the risk is minimal? Hmmmm, where I have I heard “the risk is minimal” before? I am not saying that you’re wrong, just don’t rattle these talking points off the tops of your heads and expect them to be interpreted as facts. Without something to back it up, this info is no better than that offered by Jane and her group that you, perhaps justifiably so, dismiss as unqualified. What are your sources?

  22. Oh Mander says:

    Thanks, Greg2. Until now, the debate was missing that all-important spook factor… I am beginning to interpret the lack of substance in these responses as a sign that the studies I’m looking for do not exist. Why do you suppose that is?

  23. Stocktown USA says:

    Why not build a refinery in North or south Dakota so it doesn’t come through the Sand Hills. The refinerys in TX are old and in need of repair anyway so build a new one.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Enviro whacko’s wont let another refinery be built. All part of their plan to get back to natural???

    It will be interesting in the capitol the next few weeks.

    With CIR reform, some budget items, and perhaps winner takes all……….

  25. Anonymous says:

    Hey it would be great if we could get a law in Nebraska like the new one being signed in Florida, where teacher tenure is ended, and a lot of their collective bargining!

  26. Obvious says:

    @ Mander –

    I’m not your research assistant. Go to your google machine and look up the pipeline and the Perryman Report. Perryman is a Nobel nominated economist who did a study on the economic imact of the pipeline (and has Nebraska specific #’s that show the revenue). Also, on your google machine, look up Transcanada and Project Labor Agreement. That’s an agreement that they signed with labor unions that represent workers who will work on the potential pipeline outlining wages, hours and terms and conditions of employment.

    Or, just drink the Kool Aid. Peace.

  27. Obvious says:

    @Mander part 2 –

    I forgot to reply to your other questions:

    1. who says the refineries will sell to US users? – I would suggest looking at a map and asking yourself why a refinery in Houston would pay Transcanada millions of dollars to move oil to Houston when they planned to put it on a ship and send it to China, et al.

    2. Gas prices. I’m making that asumption based on a simple supply and demand argument. Seems to me if we can get supply from a more reliable and friendly source, without having to move it here on a boat, or rely on people in the Middle East who dislike us to control pricing and supply, that we will see less strain on prices.

  28. Greg says:

    @Mander I am simply trying to appeal to your human rights sensibilities. I do not think that amnesty international is happy with the situation in the Middle East what with dictators killing their subjects and such.

    If you want some real spook factor consider this, if the pipeline is not built in the United States Canada will simply build the pipeline to its West Coast and export all of its oil to China. Now as I’m sure you know, China doesn’t exactly have the best record when it comes to human rights (see Tiananmen Square). Granted the XL pipeline will still be built towards Canada’s west coast and oil will be shipped to China, but if the pipeline would be built in the US at least some of it will be coming here.

    Mander unfortunately our cars don’t run on hope and change, so unless you or someone else who opposes the XL pipeline have a patent for a production car that runs on something other than gasoline it would be prudent to allow the pipeline to be built through Nebraska.

    All I hear from the left is that we need to get rid of fossil fuels, but I don’t see any viable alternative fuels. Solar energy isn’t a viable alternative, neither is wind energy. Nuclear is a clean energy source, but I am going to assume that no more plants will be built because of the disaster in Japan. So you tell me Mander how would you solve the energy crisis?

  29. RWP says:

    That sounds like it could have come from the study I’m looking for, but an anomymous blog poster doesn’t really meet my standard for a reliable source.
    I’m not anomymous, or even anonymous. The Perryman Group report is dated 6/10/10. Google it.
    Who says the refined products will even be sold in the US?
    They could conceivably be exported. It’s unlikely, but that would certainly help our trade balance, no? US refiners selling products overseas; you have a problem with that? Get back some of those dollars we send to China?
    Who says that the risk is minimal?
    I do.

  30. Oilyindemorning says:

    The USA has a crapload of oil but Obama, Kleeb and a few twits don’t want us to drill for it here because it will spoil the planet we live on. They don’t mind oil spoiling the other planet where Arabs and Canadians live.

    Before we drill for any oil, we should have a surgeon drill a test hole in the heads of these twits to see if they can discover brain matter. My guess is, we can safely put them to pasture munching moss and gnat larvae in ANWR while We the People drill for our oil wherever we damn well please.

  31. A Little Dab Will Do Ya says:

    Yeah, right, Oily,
    Let’s just use all our natural resources up as fast as we can. What the **** do we care about any future generations of Americans? It is all about me, me, me, me, me — isnt’ it?

  32. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Here’s an idea to alleviate Nebraska’s shrinking population and exodus of intellectual capital … let’s offer homes to thousands of those Japanese that live within 50 miles of Japan’s failing nuclear reactors. They could come here and start businesses, farms, etc. It would cost us no more than the billions in welfare that we give away to farmers and ranchers in the form of subsidies. It would probably cost us less than the welfare we gift to corporations in the form of “economic incentives.”

  33. Greg says:

    @Brian T. Osborn Seriously? I agree that some subsidies are completely out of whack, for example CRP which pays me not to grow crops on my land. But Mr. Osborn can you tell me who started the CRP subsidy? That’s right its the hero of the progressive left, President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Mr. Roosevelt started CRP so that we wouldn’t have another dust bowl. The reason the dust bowl occured his because the entire midwest went through a drought of biblical proportions and oppressive heat coupled with feriouscious wind and the fact that farmers didn’t install any windbreaks around their property and farmed their cropland all the up to the edge of the road. So you can thank Mr. Roosevelt for most of the farm subsidies that are in place today.

    As for “economic incentives”, corporations brings jobs to place like Omaha, Lincoln, Columbus, Kearney, Norfolk, Gerhing, Scotts Bluff, etc. etc. Those same corporations then employee workers from the State of Nebraska or transfer their work force from other states into Nebraska. This give Nebraska the added benefit of more workers to pay more income tax. When workers have jobs they also tend to spend their money in the market thereby creating more tax revenue for the State through sales tax. If enough of the workers spend enough of their money in the geographic location in which they live it creats other jobs in other industries. As you may or may not know more demand creates the need for more supply and when there is more supply a company needs more workers to sell the supply and meet the demand. Those new job created in new industries then creat more tax paying citizens. But, you’re right those GD corporations and their “economic incentives” are really crushing the state of Nebraska!

    I think what you should be more worried about Mr. Osborn is that almost half of the American population is paying no taxes at all, and no its not the “rich” who are not paying their fair share of taxes (the top 10% of wage earners, those making an average of $366,000/year paid 73% of ALL taxes collected by the federal government), it is the people who have been on public assistance for generations and have never paid anything into the system who are now draining the system.

  34. The Pip says:

    Who hasn’t Gov. Dave reprimanded that questions him? You guys can quote all of the studies you want. Most studies tend to favor the sponsors of the studies. Nobel winners? Big deal, Obama has one. My problem is what gives a foreign company the right to force the seizure and acquisition of Nebraska land? A buddy of mine works for XL, and he said to give up the fight because they will do what they damn well please. I have a feeling that if all of those quoting the jobs, property taxes, and economic developement of this pipeline saw the trenchers and crews showing up in your suburb to run a line through your backyard, you might have a different opinion. I certainly haven’t heard any farmers who are very pleased with the whole process.

    When this oil is refined, it will be sold to the highest bidder. It is the American, er Canadien way.

  35. Greg says:

    @The Pip I will gladly allow the XL pipeline to cut through my northeasten Nebraska farm. I’m not worried about the oil leaking from the pipeline and I will also accept the easement fee the oil company wants to pay me. Not to mention I will make sure that the easement is on a year to year basis with payments coming due every twelve months.

  36. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Greg, just because I am a self-described Über-Liberal, please don’t assume that I am a typical knee-jerk advocate of every liberal “cause” or defender of every liberal program ever instituted. There were a lot of programs that FDR and his administration put into place to help America out of a very deep hole; many of them were meant to be temporary programs. But, since then many bottom feeding politicians (Democratic and Republican) have used those programs to propagate their own longevity. Allocating tax revenues to programs that assuage the financial burdens of their constituents is a too handy means of buying votes. How long do you think a Republican politician in this state would last were he/she to propose an end to the agricultural and corporate WELFARE programs in place?

    As for those GD corporations … I personally would advocate a federal law that would prohibit the states from competing against one another by offering corporations financial incentives. I would suggest that the free market system should regulate where companies decide to locate. Giving the corporations a free ride only results in the working class having to bear the burden of providing a tax base while allowing the fat cats to get ever fatter.

    While I’m on that topic, I would also tax corporations that want to transfer their American manufacturing capabilities overseas at least 10,000% on every piece of equipment they ship. The destruction of America’s manufacturing ability has resulted in what I consider a weakening of our ability to defend ourselves. Those companies that have given American jobs to foreigners should be treated with the same regard that we usually reserve for our enemies. The damage they have done to our nation is no less than that caused by a determined foe. I would also tax the transfer of American capital overseas at a rate high enough to discourage the weakening of our economy. Donald Trump has threatened to take his money overseas if we don’t kiss his ass. I would let him leave, and take that weird animal that lives on his head with him, but tax him to the point that he would leave the U.S. penniless.

    You claim that those on public assistance are responsible for the drain on our nations economy. Well, my answer is that those in the top 10% haven’t been doing their patriotic duty of using their capital to create jobs for their fellow Americans. Their primary concern has been turning a profit for their corporations, NOT keeping America strong. A lot of those people that have been on public assistance for generations would prefer to be helping out by having good jobs so that they could pay taxes. As for those that are genuinely too lazy to work, what would you suggest for them … death camps?

  37. The Pip says:

    Therein lies the problem, Greg. It is not a matter of what you will or will not accept. It is a matter of what they will give in trade. It doesn’t matter if you want it or not. I have no clue where your farm is, but I’m talking about $7500-$8000 an acre dirt in York County. As the farmers have told me, not only is there no choice, but you have to carry six million of additional farm liability insurance. Talk to your agent about buying that. Frankly, I have no opinion on the pipeline, or safety of it. My assumption is they will do what is right because all of the eyes of the watchdogs will be on them. I do have an opinion on a foreign company taking away a mans rights to his own property and use of it. I thought we were over this two hundred years ago. It is bad enough when our own government sticks it to us, but it is a lot worse when they allow another country to do it. Gov. Dave could do something about it if he wanted to. He loves to say all local decisions should be left up to local government, unless he disagrees with it.

  38. The Pip says:

    Hi Unk. Glad you made it through the winter. I was afraid your carcass was feeding the crows at the Funk Lagoons. Be well.

  39. Greg says:

    @ Brian I think you and I want the same thing but have a slightly different way of getting to it. I disagree with you on the fact that states should compete with each other to attract business because if the states do not compete every major corporation will go to the coast because of ease of transportation, ease of shipping, better education, etc. The working class has to provide a tax base for the nation anyhow if we tax corporation to the hilt, which they are federally, then they will simply move their operation out of the United States. The fact is the “fat cats” are always going to get fatter because they built a large corporation that makes money. I don’t begrudge someone who makes millions of dollars simply because I don’t make that much money or because I think that they need to pay more taxes. I realize that they pay a lot more taxes than I ever will and I also don’t like to punish people who create jobs in the United States.

    While I don’t disagree with you that corporations sending our manufacturing has weakened the country and should be stopped, again I have another solution for that. Get rid of unions. period. Unions were great in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. The robber barons treated workers horribly and unions did great things to provide established working hours, breaks, uniform wages, weekends, etc. The problem is that they unions grew out of control and started demanding more and more and more. We have the laws on the books now, it is established that a company cannot make a 6 year old work 18 hours a day 7 days a week. Having the Cadillac health insurance plan that they pay little to nothing for and then crying when someone wants to make you to contribute to it is ridiculous. The reason corporations shipped jobs overseas is because they can pay the workers less to get the same work done. I have no doubt that if the unions were decertified manufacturing would come back to the United States. The American worker is far better than any in the world, but the companies can’t afford to pay the unions and expect the company to be profitable.

    As for Donald Trump, dude’s a joke everybody know that, but he is no different than alec baldwin or rosie o’donnell, or barbara streisand saying they would move to France or Canada if President Bush won a second term. Ok see ya.

    Finally, the top 10% can’t give a job to someone with no skills. The problem with the welfare system is the people who are paying into it, it is the lack of education and the 51% of welfare recipients that are single parents households. Can we really expect someone to get a high school diploma or GED, not to mention a college education, if they also have to take care of a child? And yes I suggest death camps for those to lazy to work. Not really, but I think that there should be incentives and punishments for not meeting certain welfare guidelines. For example if a welfare recipient has a child, that child must graduate high or the welfare recipient will be cut off for the rest of their life and the child will never be eligible for welfare. If a welfare recipient has a child who has a child before age 18, the child and new grandchild will only receive 40% welfare benefits for their life time.

  40. Brian T. Osborn says:

    … and I might add … about as logical as Marie Antoinette’s plan to let the starving masses “eat cake.” Lot of good that little plan did her.

  41. RWP says:

    I do have an opinion on a foreign company taking away a mans rights to his own property and use of it.

    If we had one more conservative justice, Kelo vs. New London would have gone the other way, and eminent domain could not be used to force the sale of land by one entity or person to another. Whether or not they’re foreign is academic these days. Publicly held companies trade across national lines.

    It’s a shame.

  42. TexasAnnie says:

    Greg at 8:35 am, yesterday:
    Don’t you suppose that IF corporate welfare worked in the manner you describe, that new tax revenue generated would cover new infrastructure, educational, medical and social costs incurred to the state and local communities? And don’t you suppose that IF corporate welfare worked in the manner you describe, that your Dept. of Revenue would be able to demonstrate it’s success? And don’t you suppose that IF corporate welfare worked in the manner you describe, that it could be regarded ethical?

    Tell me Greg: Has Nebraska’s spoils system of shifting the tax burden to middle-income earners been fiscally and morally sound? And your evidence for your opinion is _____?

  43. Greg says:

    @Brian I’m not quite sure how my plan is anything like Marie Antoinette. Personal responsibility is an excellent motivator and if people on welfare cannot or will not take responsibility it is not up to me or society to save them. Government shouldn’t protect people from themselves.

    @Texas Annie my evidence is found by doing a simple google search of Nebraska’s tax rankings. Middle of the road in the United States at 28th overall. Nebraska’s “corporate welfare” is 29th in the nations with South Dakota being the most business friendly, Iowa being one of the least business friendly and Kansas behind Nebraska at 35th.
    Tell me Texas Annie, if a corporation pays taxes but the government wastes those taxes and spends them on things other than infrastructure, education, medical and social costs, is it really the corporations fault?
    How would you have the corporate structure in America work? State owned businesses? Government Controlled Capitalism (i.e. the Chinese Model?)

    All I hear from the left is crying and whining about evil corporations and how they aren’t supporting society, but I never hear any solutions.

  44. MacDaddy says:

    Obama picked 29 of the first 32 games correctly. Sure knows his basketball. How much time would one have to spend watching and or talking about basketball to be such a great handicapper?

  45. GeosUser says:

    Uber liberals and other delusional folks (aka BTO, TexasAnnie,,
    Corporations do not pay taxes. The customers of those corporations pay the taxes which are included in the price of the goods/services sold. Giving corporations a “tax incentive” is not welfare, since it is usually in the form of tax credits which allow the corporation to keep a higher share of its net revenues as opposed to direct payments which are not based upon corporate market performance.

  46. Brian T. Osborn says:

    RWP @7:29, OMG! We agree on something!

    Greg@9:45, I agree that personal responsibility is a commendable trait. However, history has proven that not all people are going to be personally responsible. To create laws that push those people ever closer to the edge only increases the likelyhood that they will turn to a life of crime, putting our families, and our society at risk. Marauding hordes of armed, hungry, desperate people that are kicked off of the dole would probably cost us more in the way of and increased need for law enforcement and construction of new prisons. America already has the shameful “honor” of imprisoning a greater percentage of its populace than any other nation. Home of the “free” indeed!

    The corporations don’t waste our tax dollars, our politicians do. It is OUR responsibility to elect politicians that will take better care of our nation’s wealth. Giving billionaires truckloads of cash is not, in my opinion, a very intelligent way to do it.

    Anonymous A$$ @ 10:08 (aka Brian’s shrink), Still molesting the underage girls in your neighborhood?

  47. Anonymostly says:

    Pretty sure we could have bombed frickin Libya with a Republican Pres who didn’t campaign based on what a peace loving guy he is. Talk about a war of American aggression. I thought you Dipsh!t Democrats opposed any wars that didn’t directly relate to defending our national security. If Bush had done this, the liberal media would be squealing like stuck pigs. Can’t wait to see Bud or Brian express their outrage over American aggression in Libya. Bottom line: Democrats suck.

  48. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Bottom line … anonymous ***holes suck to an even greater degree. Just blathering about your prejudices doesn’t cover it, you’re going to have to try harder than just tossing your own excrement. Or at least improve your aim.

    One thing idiots like you need to learn is that not all Liberals or Democrats, just like not all Conservatives and Republicans, are cut from the same bolt of cloth. But don’t let reality get in the way of your mindless biases, just keep believing what the voices in your head tell you. As for squealing like stuck pigs, all one has to do is dial in Rush Limpbaugh, Glen Blech, or listen to anything that alien being, Ann Coulter, has to say and you’ll get an earful of it. They all lie at the speed of light.

    I don’t agree with all of the lefty pundits out there in the mainstream media, but I certainly find it difficult to swallow ANY of the B.S. that comes from the right.

    As for Gadaffi, I hope somebody gives him GBU-43/B suppository. Back in April of 1986 I was on the island of Lampedusa when that monkey poop tosser (are you guys related?) lobbed a couple of SCUD missiles at our Loran station. He’s going to get what he deserves.

  49. RWP says:

    Well, this is what we don’t agree on, BTO. Corporations aren’t people. Corporate taxes are just another cost to the company. Increase costs too much, and the corporation moves elsewhere.

    In the process of extracting money at gunpoint from the citizenry, which is what gummints do, corporate taxes are a poor tool. Corporations are far more flexible, more mobile and smarter than individual citizens. Sock it to them, and they move out of your jurisdiction. Better to dock the poor sucker who has a house, a job, kids in school, and can’t easily move down to Texas, like Annie, whence she lectures us on the state taxes she doesn’t pay.

    Your problem, BTO, is that you see taxation as a righteous exercise. Operationally, it’s more useful to regard it as a shakedown. You can’t shakedown people bigger than you, or people who can just run away.

  50. Brian T. Osborn says:

    RWP, Keep that in mind as you enjoy the security and services that taxation provides for you here in the U.S. You sleep safe at night thanks to our national defense, our government entities that ensure the food you are eating isn’t going to kill you, our government agencies that help you in case of natural calamities, etc. Be thankful for the taxpayer funded police, fire departments, and yes, even our education system … which, by the way I believe is providing you the welfare that pays your bills.

    I probably have a little more experience with “the process of extracting money at gunpoint” than you do with your pedantic exercises, having lived in the midst of the Sicilan Mafia for a dozen years. What our government does is nothing at all like that. If you don’t like it, haul your ass back to Ireland. Things are obviously so freakin’ much better there. You’re constantly preaching to us Yanks about how f***ed up we all are. Maybe there’s a nice corporation in the Emerald Isle that could hire your grouchy old ass.

    Corporations are smarter than citizens? Are you being paid to shill for them in the same way that GeosUser has been?

    Yes, RWP, I do see taxation, not so much as a righteous exercise, but as a necessary evil. If we are all going to be independent from one another, with no government, the only law we would have is how fast we can draw our weapons, and I’m afraid your fat ass would already be in Boot Hill.

  51. TexasAnnie says:

    I don’t agree with you, BTO, in your course argumentation of 4:14 above. And I don’t agree that a fear of impending lawlessness is an appropriate cause for establishing tax policy as per your comments at 11:26 above. But I do agree with your depiction of corporate welfare and I object to it’s proliferation among the states. I don’t think GeosUser and Greg understand a concept of egality; for them, only the liberty of the individual is relevant.

    So, Greg, your ‘evidence’ is corporate propaganda and not studies/reports from your own Nebraska Department of Revenue?

    And you, GeosUser, simply issue an axiom: corporations don’t pay taxes; people pay taxes. Duh.
    And how does this axiom stand as a premise when considering arguments for or against corporate welfare? If taxes are bad for any corporations, shouldn’t we question whether taxes are bad for all corporations? If taxes are bad for some corporations but not all corporations, should we be trusting our politicians to make the distinction? And finally, GeosUser (and I’ve asked your this before but you can’t or won’t respond), what say you about the ‘ethics’ of special privileges and immunities with regard to tax policy?

    P.S. to RWP: I’ll accept your apology at any time regarding your defense of the ‘user fees’ I had to pay when brought to Nebraska. Y’all used me!

  52. Brian T. Osborn says:

    Well, Annie, sometimes I just don’t know how to drive the point home in any other manner that can penetrate thick skulls. My point about impending lawlessness isn’t one I like to make, it is just my observation of historical fact.

    By the way, RWP, if the SCOTUS can say that corporations have the rights of a citizen, such as free speech, and the right to buy politicians, then yeah … they’re people.

  53. Macdaddy says:

    Anonymostly: we welcome, with open arms, all the pacifist Leftists who have seen the error of their ways and have decided to allow the President conduct foreign policy in the way he sees fit without a constant barrage of criticism. At the risk of sounding condescending, it’s nice to see that they’ve grown up. I, of course, would include our esteemed President, The One, in that group of Leftists who have “grown up.”

  54. RWP says:

    [i] RWP, Keep that in mind as you enjoy the security and services that taxation provides for you here in the U.S. You sleep safe at night thanks to our national defense, our government entities that ensure the food you are eating isn’t going to kill you, our government agencies that help you in case of natural calamities, etc. Be thankful for the taxpayer funded police, fire departments, and yes, even our education system … which, by the way I believe is providing you the welfare that pays your bills.[/i]

    Man, BTO, you’ve really drunk the kool aid, haven’t you? The government is really what stops the food I buy from killing me? Due diligence has nothing to do with it? So what has the gummint done for he tens of thousands of people sickened and sometimes killed in E coli and Salmonella outbreaks?

    My food is safe, because I make sure it’s safe, I grow much of it myself, and I don’t eat crap.

    My only interactions with the LPD have been negative. The LFD tried to shake down my wife for a ‘scholarship donation’ to pay for LFD kids to go to college. When she asked some questions, the guy told her he knew where we lived. Which isn’t in Lincoln, by the way.

    I have insurance to cover calamities.

    And I work for a living. I don’t collect welfare. You should try it.

    [i]I probably have a little more experience with “the process of extracting money at gunpoint” than you do with your pedantic exercises, having lived in the midst of the Sicilan Mafia for a dozen years. What our government does is nothing at all like that. If you don’t like it, haul your ass back to Ireland. [/i]

    I got the same right to be here as you, son. I had to actually qualify to be a citizen, not be born into it because my momma got knocked up outside some bar in Buffalo County.

    Yeah, you were a real mafioso,I bet. Save it for your bar buddies. Better yet, haul your ass over to Sicily and convince them you’re a real tough guy.

    I think, like so often happens, your rehab has taken away what personality you had and left a nasty shell of a person. Go back on the sauce, man.

  55. Anonymous says:

    Hey you jerk, RWP your way over bounds with your comments to Brian T. Osborne. So every bit of food you eat you grow your self? You must have some good beef critters grazing in your lawn for meat Or is that your wife? I was pretty rude to you also. Just the way you were to Brian T. Osborne. and any one else who does not think the way you do.

  56. Anonymous says:

    TexasAnnie: Were you gainfully employed full or part-time any of the time you lived in NE or just your husband? You rail on about beng used and your taxes this and that. Just wondered if you were actually employed.

  57. RWP says:

    Anon @ 4.49 pm. I certainly eat things more intelligent than you. In fact, I just had shrimp for dinner.

    If you’d like to slur my wife to me face to face, we can arrange a meeting.

  58. Brian T. Osborn says:


    As usual, you’re back to tossing your own excrement. You cheeky monkey.

    I highly doubt that you are as self-sufficient as your fantasies would have us believe. You are right that our government systems do fail us. They are, after all, operated by humans that are fallible. For example, some of our state university students have the misfortune of having to attend classes offered by sub-par educators.

    Do tell us about your negative interactions with the LPD. Exactly what WERE you arrested for? OK, we get it, you oppose donating charitably to such organizations as the Lincoln Fire Dept., probably any other such organization as well. I hope you are as self-sufficient as your ego believes you are if and when your house ever ignites. I hope your insurance covers your own stupidity.

    What should I try, collecting welfare? I’ve never been on the dole, and I don’t intend ever to be. So what, exactly, is the feeble point you’re trying to make? Oh wait, I forgot, you toss monkey shit and expect it to stick. Typical.

    I don’t know how you jump to the conclusion that I lived on the operating end of the gun over in Sicily. Like most good, law abiding, hard working citizens, I had to deal with the Mafia on the receiving end, and I can tell you … it wasn’t fun. That has a lot to do with why I am so intolerant of those, like you, that believe they should never have to abide by the laws of society.

    And the next time you make some wisecrack about my mother, you son-of-a-bitch, I will come down to Lincoln and rearrange your ****ing head with a Louisville Slugger. Got it?

  59. RWP says:

    Yeah, sure you will, BTO . The only thing you’re likely to damage is your keyboard. I would say your reputation, but that’s past repair.

  60. TexasAnnie says:

    Anonymous @ 4:59 yesterday:
    What is your point? As a matter of fact for a time I did work outside the home. But my daughter’s needs of medical care, therapy and ongoing educational supports impeded my ability to continue doing the work I wanted to do. However my tax liability, as a legally married taxpayer, was based upon the total income of my household, not just my husband’s singular income. So what factor are you imputing as relevant to my statement that I was “used” by Nebraskans via your tax code there?

    Here’s the scenario which is relevant: Your legislature in concert with each of your governors from Orr to the present, have initiated tax “incentives” (rebates) to companies for doing business in Nebraska. There are costs to government for expanding business (infrastructure, medical and educational facilities, security and social programming, etc.). When the rebates exceed the costs, it is valid to say that the tax incentives have failed to spur “economic development.” And I’m asking readers and especially pro-tax-incentive writers here to look at your rebates v. costs equation to LEARN something about your tax policies in Nebraska…

    Now in the case of some families, including mine, company policies REQUIRED relocation to Nebraska because the laws being written REQUIRED the movement of income taxpayers into the state. Indeed, during floor debate surrounding the early tax-rebating laws, it was stated unequivocally that the tax rebates to companies was expected to be reclaimed in the form of increased income tax revenue from relocated taxpayers. (And in the 1990’s your income tax rates there were exceedingly progressive!) This is a process for USING PEOPLE as means to your ends, rather than as ends unto themselves (i.e. an unethical practice, deontologically-speaking). I’m only trying to help you understand what your governors and legislators are doing to your tax code up there. There’s no need for insult and hostility; I’m making valid and verifiable points about your tax code and questioning whether you are in agreement with USING PEOPLE!

  61. Grundle King says:

    TexasAnnie wrote: “Now in the case of some families, including mine, company policies REQUIRED relocation to Nebraska because the laws being written REQUIRED the movement of income taxpayers into the state.”

    Well, it would appear the solution passed you by. You were never truly required to move to Nebraska, you could have simply quit your job and stayed where you are. Just imagine how much more pleasant your life, and ours, would have been.

  62. droolingidiotupforreelection says:

    Hey Texas, you are asking Nebraskans to look logically at political and tax policies in Nebraska, to consider that such are unethical, self defeating and that such hurt what they aim to help. And you are then surprised to be insulted in return for you telling Nebraskans they have thier zipper open?

    Here’s a clue. Nebraskans think a unicameral is wonderful. Everyone else, including the US Constitution’s designers, see our unicameral as the tippy top of stupidity. They think lacking two houses to balance and check each other causes Nebraska’s unicameral to push through too quickly bad legislation that should be slowed and makes it impossible to have needed good legislation even have a chance of passing. A unicameral is a bunch of crooks without a second bunch of crooks to balance the first bunch, but Nebraskan’s actually like having that unchecked elected mafia running the state. Its the ethanol in the corn. We never quite sober up.

    Don’t waste your time trying to talk reasonable politics with us Nebraskans. Go away and let us idiots get on with our idiocy.

    and to grasp that Nebraska’s leadering political figures don’t know what they are doing. aiming to serve people, and you want Nebraskans to themselves (i.e. an unethical practice, deontologically-speaking). I’m only trying to help you understand what your governors and legislators are doing to your tax code up there. There’s no need for insult and hostility

  63. Anonymous says:

    TexasAnnie: As much as you are into research I don’t know why you didn’t figure that all out prior to accepting a move to Nebraska and flat out reject it as it would have compromised your ethics. But no, you didn’t do that because you were following the money, right? You can’t have it both ways. You and your husband benefitted from his job in Nebraska because you are now retired and living on 20 some acres of land in Texas. So what you reaped in Nebraska has allowed you to retire comfortably. Stop whining about Nebraska and look around your new backyard. Surely there’s something down there you can find to occupy your time.

  64. Cigar Smoker says:

    Its common knowledge that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, but we still keep giving them to big business anyway.

  65. Dennis says:

    It’s easy to forget, but during the Bush era, Republicans repeated certain talking points
    over and over again: there’s one Commander in Chief and one Secretary of Defense, not
    535. When the president orders U.S. troops to engage a foreign foe, it’s not the job of
    politicians on Capitol Hill to run to the cameras to second guess every White House
    decision. Indeed, questioning the national security judgment of the president during a
    war necessarily emboldens our enemies and needlessly divides the country during a
    delicate time.

    At least, that’s what we were told during the previous administration, when the very
    notion of dissent during military engagement was enough to have one’s patriotism called
    into question.

    In this case, U.S. forces started using force not quite 48 hours ago, and some
    Republicans are already telling a national and international television
    audience that they’re unhappy with the particulars.

    For the record, I have no problem whatsoever with Republicans (and Democrats) raising
    questions about the administration’s policy, which obviously deserves intense scrutiny
    and debate. We’re no longer hearing the talking points from the Bush era, and that’s a
    healthy development, not only for the quality of the discourse, but for the idea of
    dissent itself.

    Why do you think the Right has a new found appreciation for dissent in war time?

  66. MacDaddy says:

    2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

    The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

    Then Senator Barack Obama, 2007

    Do I even need to start in on the obvious hypocrisy? At least Kucinich is asking about impeachment while Michael Moore is going ballistic. Obama should be dissenting from himself, but instead, rather than talking to Congress and getting some sort of legislative approval, he’s on vacation overseas.

  67. MacDaddy says:

    BTO, are you claiming that you paid “protection money,” were extorted by, robbed, mugged, or were otherwise a direct victim of criminal activity by the Sicilian Mafia? Did you witness such activity directed towards others? Did you report this activity to the nearest American or Italian authorities? I’m just curious. Could make for a gripping book, you know.

  68. Brian T. Osborn says:

    In the years I lived in Sicily, not a single person was left unaffected in one way or another by the activities of the Mafia. At the minimum, their “protection” of your neighborhood merchants resulted in a “value added” fee. I personally witnessed two people murdered in separate incidents, and saw the aftermath of several others, perhaps being the first upon the scene in one of them. One did not hang around to be a witness to such things if one expected to live long and prosper.
    There is a saying in Sicilian, “Niente saccio, niente visto, se c’ero, dormivo.” It means, “I know nothing, I saw nothing, if I was there, I was sleeping.” That was an attitude that kept you alive. If you talked, you died. Very simple.
    My first personal experience with such things was shortly after I left the Navy. I was returning home after dark one evening when I noticed some kids carting away parts of a Fiat 500. I wondered where they had found such things. As I got nearer my apartment, I saw more kids carrying more parts. Then I saw what they were up to. They were dismantling one of my neighbors’ cars. I didn’t have a phone at that time, so I went to my neighbor across the hallway and asked to use his phone. He asked me why, and when I told him, he sat me down and explained the facts of life to me. He told me that my concern was commendable, but that if I wanted to continue to live, I would mind my own business. Had I reported the theft, he said, I would have soon been killed, or at a minimum, have acid thrown in my face and blinded. That’s the way life was in Catania at the time.
    I once had a man knifed right at the gate to my apartment not two minutes before I was leaving. He had been robbed, given the punks everything he had, and they stabbed him just for the fun of it.
    I had my apartment broken into twice, with everything of value taken. The second time it happened I had a door with five one-inch thick steel bars to lock it. It was almost like a bank vault door. They took out the wall to get in. Of course, none of my neighbors saw anything, nor heard anything … they were sleeping.
    I saw a guy near the fish market have his head blown clean off while on the way to work. Two punks on a Vespa reached into the guy’s car right in front of me and stole his wallet. He fought back and they shot him. I saw another couple of kids on a motorbike pop a couple of caps into the head of a guy I used to buy ice cream from. I was about a block away, so I turned and took another road. The day I left Sicily, two men were executed not 50 yards from my front door. I learned of it when I picked up a newspaper in the Fiumicino airport in Rome. I still have the paper. I keep it as a reminder.
    Giuseppe Fava, a courageous journalist that exposed the ties between the Mafia and several local politicians was murdered on the way to see his daughter in a play. I used to draw editorial cartoons for his paper, ‘I Siciliani.’ I considered him to be a friend.
    So yeah, I guess you could say I had a front seat to what the Mafia did. Dingbats like RWP can make fun of it all they want, but he, and those like him, are nothing but a bunch of damned monkeys that like to toss their own poop at people as they walk by.

  69. Dennis says:

    MacDaddy, You don’t have to convince me. I’m opposed to this military action in Libya. I’m just wondering why the Right has a radically different perspective on dissent in war time than it did during the Bush Administration. It’s especially interesting to me since the Right chased Hagel out of the Senate because he was critical of Bush’s Iraq war policies.

  70. Don Kuhns says:

    Some questions for the union haters:

    With private sector union membership now the lowest it’s been since 1905, why haven’t all those jobs that unions supposedly scared away come back?

    What makes you think that without unions, corporations won’t go right back to their old tricks, with the help of bought politicians? They’re already trying to legalize child labor in Missouri.

    Do you prefer socialistic income redistribution to the fair compensation that unions promote, or do you just think things will be peachy keen when the top 1% owns everything?

  71. Macdaddy says:

    Hagel left of his own volition. Bruning was going to challenge him in the primary and Hagel quit. I certainly disagreed with his views on Iraq, but what made me maddest was his treatment of General Petraeus. He was all smiles to his face and then tried to stab him in the back as he was leaving the room by opposing giving Petraeus the tools he needed to get the job done.

    As for the rest, it is the Loony Left who is screaming the loudest (at about a 4th of the volume they used on Bush) about what Obama did. Republican Congressmen are doing their Consitutional duty by asking “Mind filling us in on the details?” of the President because he is sending Americans into harm’s way. At best, this was a hastily thrown together plan that will work. At worst, this was a hastily thrown together plan that was not thought through and will blow up in our faces, not Quadaffi’s. The questions and the tone is nothing like what came at Bush as he was building support in Congress for not only Iraq but also Afghanistan. Obama, so far, hasn’t really bothered to talk to Congress. Of course, being on vacation, it’s kind of hard.

    So, Dennis, do you think Obama should be out of the country when we attack another country? Should he have gotten Congressional approval first, or not? Are you fine with the fact that he spent time getting approval from the UN, the EU, NATO, and the Arab League and didn’t bother with the US Congress?

  72. Brian T. Osborn says:

    It was, if not worse. If you want to read some REALLY interesting stories sometime, just google a few of the following search terms. What you’ll find will make the little arguments we get into here on Leavenworth Street look mighty lame: P2 Masonic Lodge, Banco Ambrosiano, Giuseppe Fava, Generale Della Chiesa, Giovanni Falcone, strage di Bologna.
    Yeah, living in Italy during the late ’70s and throughout the ’80s was certainly “interesting.” There were factions of the government, the banking industry, the clergy, and others that were attempting to take over control of the government, so, in order to sway public opinion, they committed atrocities that they could blame on the Communists and others of the left. They killed a lot of innocent people, some say including Pope John Paul I (the one that only lasted about a month, before J.P.II took over.)
    I felt I was living the curse, “may you live in interesting times.”

  73. Brian T. Osborn says:

    I don’t know about Dennis, but I think the President should have at least consulted with Congress first. Personally, I don’t like the fact the POTUS, whether Democrat or Republican, can start wars on his own volition. The Constitution states quite clearly that only Congress has that authority.

  74. Don Kuhns says:

    Geouser wrote:

    “Uber liberals and other delusional folks (aka BTO, TexasAnnie,,
    Corporations do not pay taxes. The customers of those corporations pay the taxes which are included in the price of the goods/services sold.”

    I’m no wizard of finance like yerself, Geo, but don’t market forces determine the price of goods and services? Higher overhead doesn’t necessarily translate into higher prices.

  75. Jenn says:

    Pip, I completely agree. Conservatives need to stop thinking about this pipeline issue in terms of “if the liberals hate it, I love it!” What about the private property owners whose rights are going to be trampled here? Some of my family members have property where the pipeline would go. They are NOT pleased about the terms, and they are being bullied into accepting a bad deal.

    I agree with Mander–how is this good for Nebraska? The jobs created for pipeline construction will not be long-term employment. No actual lasting economic development will result; only the risk to our land and water and the violation of private property rights. Where is the supposed extra $150 million coming from? That is not adequately explained in the study cited above. Do people believe that’s going to happen every year? How so? Personally, I don’t buy that, because if the costs were that high, it would make more financial sense for Transcanada to modify the existing pipeline to accommodate higher volume. Something in the milk ain’t clean here.

    And hey, I’m all for buying oil from Canada! The more we can produce in N America the better! However, that doesn’t mean THIS project is the right one. It bothers me that the only objections are being raised by liberals, so everyone just thinks it’s loony environmentalists having a problem. Not at all. Conservatives, people who care about property owners, people who care about the farmers involved should be concerned about this issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.