Lormong Jerram

Stothert-strip-shirt-02-Jerram-1Omaha City Councilman Chris Jerram (he of the “Stripper Stothert t-shirt fame) is now at it to try to gin up support for the Heath Mello for Mayor campaign.

Jerram decided that while Omaha Mayor Jean Stothert is out of town, would be a a GREAT time to try to push through a new tax system in Omaha.

This may spark memories of the days back in the 90’s when Councilman Lording Lo tried to push through a union agreement while serving as acting mayor while actual Mayor Hal Daub was out of town.

Back then it was seen as a goofy move by Lo, though it could be forgiven to a small extent that at least Lo’s heart was in the right place: he wasn’t just trying to score cheap political points.

Not the case with Jerram.

His only goal is to try to embarrass the Mayor — though of course, while she’s out of town, instead of to her face. And isn’t it funny that Jerram did not try to affect and change the tax structure for 2017…back when the Council was debating and passing the budget!

Of course, now there’s a question as to whether such a move would even be legal. But that never really mattered to Jerram.

This is all simply a ploy to help his buddy Heath Mello improve his chances against the Mayor with a 60% approval rating by the citizens of Omaha.

This isn’t the first from Jerram, and won’t be the last.
And since this didn’t work, he can always go back to modeling t-shirts.


Ashford and Gitmo

Democrat Congressman Brad Ashford is a piece of work.

Most people that know him will tell you that Brad is a nice enough guy. But his attempt to pretend he’s a Republican while he votes like a Democrats borders on shameless.

The latest?

Ashford has an ad out saying that he “supports” keeping the Guantanamo Bay detention camp open.

Only problem, ASHFORD VOTED TO CLOSE GITMO! Three times!
(H.R. 1735, H.R. 2596 and H.R. 2685.)

Here, let the NRCC tell it in their latest ad…

This is the Brad Ashford who is Hillary Clinton’s Nebraska Co-Chair, but won’t come to her rally in Omaha. And he tells constituents that he will be from whatever party they want him to be.

But actually voting to close Gitmo, then saying he wants to keep it open is beyond simply trying to play both sides.


District 6

Back to Omaha politics, the OWH confirms that Franklin Thompson will not run for re-election to the City Council next year. Thompson had been saying for some time that he was unlikely to run, and this makes it pretty official.

As Leavenworth St. had noted a few months back, Chairman of the Omaha Planning Board, Brinker Harding is looking very seriously at running — and this could likely guarantee it.

Also looking at that seat, reportedly, is Millard School Board member Mike Pate.

Stay connected!

Twitter: @LeavenworthSt
Facebook: Leavenworth St.


  1. Bluejay says:

    Except for Chambers and Kitner, is there any Nebraska elected official more deplorable than Jerram?

    What a cheap shot!

    Jean needs to punish him hard for this stunt.

    • Sparkles says:

      One of the bills the NRCC points to (fallaciously) is H.R. 1735.

      Ashford voted AYE on H.R. 1735, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, a bill authorizing $612 Billion in military spending.
      A bill vetoed by President Obama, a primary reason cited for the veto being that the bill would “impede the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay,”

      “impede closure” – aka – keep GITMO open.

      Therefore, against the wishes of his President, Ashford crossed party lines to vote with Jeff Fortenberry and Adrian Smith to pass a massive bill that, among it’s countless provisions, would keep GITMO open.

      The NRCC ad is deliberately deceptive (imagine that).
      If you look at the fine print of the ad (as it rapidly scrolls past), you’ll note that Ashford’s NO votes are on individual amendments to H.R. 1735.
      There were 135 Amendments teed up in the House for H.R. 1735.

      • Anonymous says:

        The Bacon Camp also idiotically uses the same language and references the overall legislation, not the amendments. Amateur hour.

      • Sparkles says:

        The GOP have given up on the even the pretense of couching their lies as simple mistakes – as amateur hour.
        The deliberate deception is what professional GOP campaign managers are paid for. It’s now highly enriching Standard Operating Procedure for a post-factual GOP.

        In 2012, when mendacious Mitt’s campaign was finally called out by the press and pundits for their unprecedented stream of lies, their public reply was – “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,”
        They didn’t care that every other sentence was a lie, and neither did their base.
        And it was Romney’s Senior Campaign Advisor who admitted, on TV, that the extreme positions Romney adopted to win the GOP primary were all now subject to change – “I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes,” Fehrnstrom responded. “It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up, and we start all over again.”

        In 2012 when the press was finally shamed into taking a stand against serial lying by a the Republican contender for POTUS – – it turned out the Republican base simply didn’t give a $%^* about the lies. Nothing Romney could say or do would give them pause.
        Critical thinking need not apply.

        Team Trump has taken the mendacity to levels never before imagined.
        Proving again, the GOP base doesn’t care.
        According to PolitiFact, a full 61% of what Donald Trump says falls into the realm of Mostly False (18%), to False (35%) to Pants On Fire (18%)
        By comparison, HRC scores are 15%, 11% and 2%.

        According to the Washington Post Fact Checker, which scores via Pinocchios, with 4 Pinocchios being a flat out lie – a full 63% percent of what Trump says scores 4 Pinocchios, with another 21% scoring 3 Pinocchios. That’s a total of 84%! of what Trump says in simply NOT TRUE!
        By comparison, HRC is no saint, with scores of 14% being 4 Pinocchios and 36% rated 3 Pinocchios.

        But again, doesn’t matter.
        Republicans don’t give crap if their President is a con man, grifter and serial liar. Cause.. Freedom!

        One of the few truths Trump has told was:
        “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters, okay. It’s like, incredible”

        Colin Powell nailed it when calling Trump a “national disgrace” and “international pariah”.
        Powell was also largely correct when saying: “Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris,”

        But, if hubris – excessive pride and self-confidence – were a disqualifier for POTUS, we would never be the great nation were now are.

  2. repenting lawyer says:

    Sweeper, one of the reasons we now elect Gov and LtG together is because while Frank Morrison was out of the State, the R LtG appointed Gene Mahoney to the Unicameral. Better than a publicity stunt.

      • Bluejay says:

        We do have some great state parks and Gene was the reason.

        He was an old school Democrat who would be uncomfortable in today’s Democrat party, IMO. Zero in common with Jane Kleeb.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Bluejay Gene was not found of the Ds by the time he died though he worked onBobby’s campaign in 68.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Chris Jerram is partly responsible for Stothert becoming mayor. Without his t-shirt stunt, she’d not have been able to pull a Deb by not rising to bait so egregious. Now Mr. Pink Pudge is at it again. Good. Sasse can hire Jerram to work on Stothert. That will guarantee she crushes Bucky in the Senate the Primary.

  4. Pat Borchers says:

    Taxes that are easily avoidable bother me less than those that aren’t (practically) avoidable. Yes, one could avoid the income tax by not taking in any income in a year, but for most people that’s not practical. One could “avoid” property taxes by renting rather than buying, but one still pays them indirectly. Sales taxes are avoidable if you don’t buy anything, but I need stuff that’s subject to the sales tax. And so on. But the restaurant tax I can avoid by making myself a sandwich or eating at a restaurant meal outside of Omaha.

    Jerram is foolish if he thinks he can embarrass Stothert this way. The restaurant tax now accounts for something like 7% of the city’s revenue. If the best he’s got is that Stothert decided to work on lowering property taxes instead, that’s some seriously weak sauce.

    • Anonymous says:

      A practical and efficient way to avoid property tax is the agricultural assessment. Brick and mortar businesses have to pay property tax without a significant reduction. Why not the ag industry?

      • Sparkles says:

        Many brick and mortar businesses in Nebraska have indeed benefited from significant tax cuts and incentives throughout the last decade.
        Many Nebraskans (largely excluding the working poor and much of the middle class) have received significant tax breaks in the last decade.

        A good synopsis, current to 2015, is available by googling –
        Policy brief: Legislature has reduced taxes significantly in past decade
        Citing from the article –
        Major tax cut packages enacted in 2005-2014 are already providing nearly $580 million in tax reductions in Fiscal Year 2014-2015 (FY15), with income tax cuts accounting for $297 million of those reductions (Table 1). The value of these tax reductions is projected to exceed $840 million per year by FY24 with income tax cuts accounting for $487 million of those reductions.

        Each bill reducing taxes in Nebraska is clearly noted and explained, each with it’s specific amount of tax relief assigned.

        Also at Open Sky is the 2014 article –
        Dr. McGuire: Research shows no conclusive link between taxes, economic growth
        McGuire spoke to a full room at the State Capitol that included about 15 state senators,..
        .. recent research shows income tax cuts in Nebraska would not benefit most Nebraskans, would send large sums of money to out-of-state residents and the federal government, and would not grow the economy.

        But of course we know this. It is has been proven time and again that Trickle Down is really Tinkle On.
        What’s the Matter with…

      • bynd says:


        It just shows that both sides have their income redistribution schemes. But then, no one on either side admits their own faults.

        by the way, Deena Winters, who wisely turned Ricky down for several date invitations (just had to throw that in) had an excellent series written on this subject several years ago. For those just catching on, welcome to the world of they both screw you, just in different ways. And by the way, small business is the engine that drives this country, yet you’ll notice all those tax breaks are not for small business.

  5. Truthiness Rocks says:

    Pat Borchers gives a brief thoughtful easy-to-grasp rendering of tax reality. The sort of distillation that is professorial in essence. For what is teaching but making the complex clear in its seminal driving parts. From that, he moves to the politics of forming his opinion that he concludes from his earlier rendered analysis. In effect, “This is what is and from that I conclude this cause.” From fact-to-opinion isn’t flawless but it is magnitudes better then the unfounded opinions too many pull out of thin air. And it is not even in the same category with the bait and switch PC tactics many use to bolster opinions that tend to bolster their earlier bad choices. In the end, truth hurts because truth is the only thing that really can hurt. That hurt is traction.

    So good for Pat. If our message isn’t being understood or appreciated, yelling louder and throwing stones doesn’t make it stick any better. Let’s hear it for refreshing reason over growling bitchiness from bitter growers of purposefully sour grapes.

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Truthiness, I was unaware that Pat Borchers was a teacher of tax law, despite his many remarkable qualities, and “I like” is not a standard phrase in legal education. The Mayor was wrong on the eat out tax when she ran. It proved necessary. I do not know if if voters will remember her change of position once elected or care,, but to point out the change is hardly “sour grapes.” I suspect Pat is right that it is not a big deal However that conclusion assumes people who eat out do not still resent that tax. I think it is probably the case that they do not notice any more and Chris is reminding them will not stir them up.

      • Anon says:

        The tax reaches out on more than going out to eat, and many remember her promise, she should have at least reduced it, but a tax imposed is only to be increased. You are right RL, Jerram only reminds those out of his district that he is a sleazebag

      • Pat Borchers says:

        PG, you know I’m not a professor of tax law, but discussing the restaurant tax isn’t exactly the same thing as understanding accelerated depreciation on factory equipment. The restaurant tax is probably mildly progressive (not the political term as you know but perhaps others may not) because I suspect that more wealthy people spend more money eating at restaurants. In general, I don’t like consumption taxes in part because they are regressive and in part because they can’t be deducted from one’s federal return. The silly effort a few years ago to raise the state sales tax to reduce property taxes would have been tax inefficient as it would have raised the overall tax burden by hiking federal tax liability on anyone who itemizes. The restaurant tax I just don’t notice anymore. Plus, if anyone deserves the “blame” for it, it’s Suttle not Stothert. Of course, “hiding” taxes makes them more palatable (but no less significant). We have enough equity in our house that we could not have the property taxes withheld, but trek down to the county treasurer and write a check every six months. I couldn’t stand it. So when we refinanced I told them to withhold the property taxes monthly.

      • repenting lawyer says:

        Pat Borchers, I was basically agreeing with you but having fun with Truthiness and his rhapsody in Borchers on the process. Even after years of retirement the tax prof in this house will not let me talk about taxes. My ignorance embarrass her.

      • Pat Borchers says:

        PG, yeah I know. Part of the fun of this blog is hashing things out. You and I post under consistent names, which makes the debate fairer. (And there are others who do so as well, though they are not cut from the same political cloth as me — Sparkles and Texas Annie come to mind, there are others on both sides of the fence) The word “truthiness” which emanates from “The Daily Show” (I think) is itself is an (or “a” — I prefer “an”) hilarious commentary on political discourse — it counts as “true” if it’s not outrageously false. And yes BG has forgotten more tax law than either of us will every know.

  6. Bluejay says:

    Someone correct me if I am wrong but isn’t it the case that Jerram votes on liquor licenses and some “subsidiary” renting space in his law firm does all sorts of liquor license work?

    Typical Dem. Corrupt.

    Can’t believe that Accountability Board allowed that.

    We need term limits on the Council.

  7. Truthiness Rocks says:

    I was making a point about the nature of all political discussion being best served by dispassioned reason. In retrospect, it may seem that I baited and switched in the middle of my text against people who bait and switch. But giving one’s self too much credit for evil genius is an insult to evil and geniuses.

    Frankly, the spectrum of informed voters has on one end people so angry they let the irrational animal take over. Yet on the other end are discussions of taxations that won’t come to fruition, and that leads to a snooze. Everyone here seemed to agree that Chris is making a transient snarky point to poke at the mayor. Okay he’s poking. But sure, if we are ever going to talk about real taxes that we will have to pay, bring us some war paint and let’s dump tea in a harbor.

    • repenting lawyer says:

      Truthiness, if you are a fan of the Mayor you think Chris was snarky. If you are not a fan you probably like what he did. I do not think it was snarky but I agree with Pat Borchers that it was probably not very effective. If you treat Omaha City elections as partisan contests your going to have partisanship. For the Sweeper to go into shock about partisan politics is amazing.
      For what its worth I think the Mayor has done a decent job and do not notice the dinning out tax. Been years since anyone told me what part of the bill was for the governor, though in Norbert Tieman’s day that was common.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.