McCook Daily Gazette. Feb. 1, 2012.
Extending limit to three terms a good idea
It's not as good as an outright repeal of term limits, but Sen. Tom Carlson's proposed constitutional amendment to limit lawmakers to three back-to-back terms is a step in the right direction.
Nebraska voters approved term limits of two consecutive terms in 2000, which went into effect in 2006. Senators can run again if they sit out one term.
We've always felt it is a mistake to limit capable, knowledgeable lawmakers to two terms, barring legislators from serving just as they have gained enough experience and created the networks necessary to be effective.
We already had term limits — voters could turn away any lawmaker they don't like at election time. We suspect most people who favor term limits do so because they want to limit the terms of officials elected from other legislative districts, not their own.
Fifteen states have some sort of term limits, and six have repealed them. Six states have lifetime bans after the terms are served, but only Nebraska has a unicameral legislature, preventing term-limited lawmakers from running for the Senate after serving in the House and vice-versa.
Term limit proponents contend that enacting the limits leaves seats open for more participants, and perhaps it does. But when they are forced to leave, seasoned lawmakers take with them the institutional memory that otherwise would keep the legislative body from fighting the same battles over and over, and making "rookie" mistakes that take years to correct.
That institutional memory, and the power it creates, shifts to unelected bureaucrats.
Extending the limit to three terms should help keep the power in the hands of voters, where it belongs.
___
Scottsbluff Star Herald. Feb. 2, 2012.
Protecting Recreation
During the past year, Nebraska politicians have raised red flags about the potential threat to agriculture from animal rights groups. Attorney General Jon Bruning even handed over $100,000 from an environmental fund to "We Support Agriculture," a coalition created to promote farming and ranching from perceived threats to Nebraska's agriculture industry by the Humane Society of the United States.
But when rural lawmakers express similar concerns about threats to hunting and fishing from the same groups, urban legislators either ridicule those concerns or steer the discussion down silly detours.
For example, some senators have proposed a constitutional amendment that would protect the right to hunt and fish. In response, an Omaha state senator complained that trying to protect those rights could prevent the sale of hunting and fishing permits. Sen. Steve Lathrop argued that if the amendment passes, permit fees could be challenged as unconstitutional infringements on the rights of hunters and anglers. Lawmakers advanced the proposal anyway, with no dissenting votes. If the measure passes with at least 30 votes on final reading, Nebraska voters will consider it in November's statewide election.
Some urban animal lovers would like to ban all hunting and fishing, not to mention eating steaks and wearing leather and fur. It's foolish to argue that lawmakers would be incapable of crafting a rule that would stymie the sale of licenses and habitat stamps that pay for wildlife conservation work. Sen. Chris Langemeier of Schuyler, chairman of the Natural Resources Committee and a supporter of the amendment, said it would not throw out the state's ability to charge for permits. He said he is willing to review the language with Lathrop to see if it needs to be changed before the final floor vote. Jim Douglas, deputy director of Game and Parks, said that his agency will meet with lawmakers to craft the amendment.
At least some people take hunting and fishing seriously. A new effort by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension plans to encourage more Nebraskans of all ages to get outdoors. "Nebraska Outdoor U!" will help people who want to learn to hunt, fish, camp or shoot, with step-by-step guidance for anyone interested in taking up or sharing an outdoor activity.
Majors at Nebraska Outdoor U! are called pathways, of which four currently are available to explore: hunting, camping, fishing and shooting sports. Each pathway includes six levels of achievement: Pathfinder, Explorer, Trailblazer, Pioneer, Mentor and Legacy. More pathways such as hiking and water sports are envisioned for the future.
"We're losing hunters, anglers, and outdoor sports people," said Scott Stuhr, Nebraska Outdoor U! coordinator. "This program helps bring them back. I've talked to so many people that would love to get outdoors but don't have anyone to guide them through the process."
(For more information or to enroll, visit http://www.OutdoorU.org/, or call Scott Stuhr at 402-472-2037.)
Outdoor recreation should be a priority if Nebraska hopes to get the most out of its growing tourism industry.
"The opportunity for your industry is enormous right now," Gov. Dave Heineman told folks attending the Nebraska Agri/Eco-Tourism Workshop at the Sandhills Convention Center in North Platte this week. "Tourism has fantastic potential, even more than what we've done in the past."
In 2010, he said non-residents of the state spent $4 billion in Nebraska. There is also a growing desire by people who live in large cities to experience agriculture and other aspects of small-town America, and that's an opportunity for the state.
It's encouraging that some officials look at the big picture.
___
The Grand Island Independent. Feb. 1, 2012.
Focusing on quality primary education is a great place to start
President Obama's State of the Union speech continued his attack on those who have high incomes, versus "the middle class." The president's goal may be more "fairness," but the result is unlikely to be greater prosperity for all.
Providing everyone with the opportunity for financial success is a worthy ambition, but we should know what does not work. In 1964, we began efforts to redistribute wealth and incomes through the War on Poverty. Over the next decades, we added more and more assistance programs. Now we are told that we have more poverty than ever before. In 1979, the cabinet-level Department of Education was created in order to insure student readiness to enjoy the fruits of a growing world economy. Today we read stories of how many students are unprepared to enter the labor force, and our decline in world educational standings.
Many experts now conclude that income disparities cannot be solved by the intervention of the federal government, whether through tax policy or by administrative dictates. While acknowledging the need for tax fairness, they say the real challenge is to deal with why there are income disparities. The answer, they say, is education. Not education in general, but at the primary level.
Why primary? Well, there are huge numbers of students who arrive at high school without the ability to read or do math, think critically, or communicate. They will soon end their free educations without the basic skills necessary to succeed in modern society, much less advance to college level courses. They will make up the majority of those who can't get or keep a good job. They will experience more than their share of social disruptions, and they will depend on government aid for survival. They will also produce children who will repeat the process.
Many of today's primary school students arrive with all kinds of problems that were practically non-existent years ago. Circumstances endured by some are appalling, but we must not consign them to failure. Instead, we need to help them succeed by hiring more teachers who aren't simply good-they must be outstanding.
There are a number of outstanding teachers now in our schools. They cannot solve society's problems alone, but they clearly can have a major impact. Recruiting highly talented people to join their ranks should be an important priority. Although placing even greater emphasis on excellence in education will involve complex issues, we should be at our innovative best in dealing with them.
While the federal government can affect the growth of the economy, history has shown that it has a limited ability to deal with the root causes of income disparities among people. Those who think education is the key make a strong case. If they are correct, the solutions are in our own backyards.
___
Lincoln Journal Star. Jan. 31.
Need for nurses is critical
When University of Nebraska officials in 2008 asked the Legislature for funds to build a new building for the College of Nursing in Lincoln, the projected shortage of 3,800 nurses in 2020 may have seemed far in the future.
Time marches on.
Meanwhile, NU nursing students are going to class in Lincoln in a rented former retail store on O Street.
And more than 400 students were turned away from baccalaureate and graduate nursing programs in Nebraska in 2010. Fifty percent to 60 percent of those applicants wanted to study in Lincoln or Kearney.
You don't need a medical degree to know how important nurses are to quality medical care. But if there is any doubt, there is research showing that higher nurse-to-patient ratios means improvement in areas such as patient mortality, hospital infections and falls.
The $17 million requested this year for construction of a new facility on East Campus for the College of Nursing was one element in a package that also includes $50 million for a new cancer center in Omaha, $19 million for the College of Nursing's Kearney division and a Kearney-based allied professionals program and $5 million to begin planning a new Veterinary Diagnostic Center in Lincoln.
A good case can be made for the entire package of improvements, called the "Building a Healthier Nebraska" initiative by NU President J.B. Milliken. The Veterinary Diagnostic Center, for example, faces loss of accreditation.
But it seems to us that the need for a new nursing education facility in Lincoln is particularly critical, and it has a history of being overlooked.
The shortage of nurses is nationwide. And it's worsening every year as baby boomers age. Health reform also has added insurance coverage for an estimated 32 million Americans, which also increases demand for nursing services.
Nurses already are burning out because of the increased stress and long hours required because of the current shortage, which is only one-third of that projected for 2020. The workload for nurses only is going to increase unless more nurses enter the field.
The new nursing facility in Lincoln would have space for 314 students rather than the current 250, as well as adding space for research. Even if the Legislature approved the funding this year, the expansion would leave the state woefully short of nurses in 2020.
The Legislature's delay on funding for the nursing facility in Lincoln was perhaps somewhat understandable during the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent recession.
But Nebraska's economy is strong. The need to build the new facility to educate more nurses for Nebraska is more urgent than ever. As Sen. Tony Fulton of Lincoln put it, "We senators have a responsibility to look forward into our future ... the time to act is now."
