Sunday, December 09, 2007
STATE SENATORS MUST ACT ON ILLEGAL ALIENS
Illegal aliens are inundating our state, as nearby state legislatures in Colorado, Kansas, and Oklahoma pass laws to restrict the employment and residency of illegals. Word gets around fast. Nebraska is a welcoming state for illegal aliens. Free K-12 education for the kids. Resident college tuition for young adults. Lots of flophouses to live in. Plenty of jobs at low pay, to undercut businesses and deprive lawful Nebraska citizens of employment. El Welfare galore: free goodies for the anchor babies, and food stamps too! Nebraska is fast becoming a safe and cozy haven for a flood of illegal aliens pouring in from nearby states. A friend of mine in Tulsa, OK., reported to me that hundreds of illegals were leaving Tulsa like rats leaving the proverbial sinking ship. Nebraska taxpayers are paying an increasing load for these unlawful invaders. Yet, we have not found one state senator to introduce a comprehensive bill in the 2008 legislature to deprive illegal aliens of all the benefits they now receive. Shame on our state senators! Who do they represent? Taxpaying citizens or those who prefer to send their money back to their home countries, depriving our consumer economy of these dollars? Contact your state senator today to introduce a bill! Email netaxpayers@cox.net for senator contact information and prospective legislation.
Friday, March 02, 2007
NEBRASKA TAXPAYERS VOTING RECORD
The NTF Congress Watch team has completed our 2006 voting records for our Capitol Hill delegation, and there are no surprises. Congressman Lee Terry from the 2nd District scored 88%, a “B+,” but he would have won an “A” rating had he voted more with conservatives on illegal alien issues. Rep. Jeff Fortenberry held down the fort again with his 83% “B” rating. Cong. Tom Osborne, who continually hawked his supposedly conservative credentials during his 2006 run for governor, scored a paltry 74%, a “C” grade.
On the other end of the Capitol, Sen. Carlos Hagel, ever the champion of illegal aliens, scored a disappointing 79%, only 2 points above Sen. Ben Nelson, who, despite his constant yammering that he is a good fiscal conservative, rated only 77%. Nebraska taxpayers are stuck with Ben-occhio for another 6 years, because they shunned a real fiscal conservative challenger, Pete Ricketts. Nebraskans angry with Sen. Hagel for his stance on illegal immigration, his opposition to Bush’s War, his obvious presidential aspirations, or his tendency to chase the Liberal Media for photo-ops and sound byte commentary*, may wish to join the NTF “Show Hagel the Gate in 2008” project. Email us as shown below.
Those who wish to have a copy of the above voting records can email ntf2@netaxpayers.org.
* Current joke on Capitol Hill: What is the fastest way to get run over in Washington, D.C.? Answer: Get between Chuck Hagel and a TV camera!
Sunday, January 28, 2007
LIBERAL STATE SENATORS TRAMPLE PETITION RIGHTS
In 1898, Nebraska became the first state to allow statewide initiative and referendum petitions. Nebraskans subsequently have used the petition process as a useful political means to gain reforms when the legislature has refused to consider them and to repeal unpopular legislation.
Now, two bills and one resolution introduced into our 2007 legislature are poised to trample our petition rights. LB 39 would prevent petition campaigns from paying petition circulators per signature collected and require them to be Nebraska registered voters. Such law would make it more difficult to recruit circulators and cost campaigns additional regulatory expense and paperwork. LB 40 would force petition circulators to wear numbered badges, though a Colorado court invalidated such a law because of privacy and harassment concerns. Failure to wear a badge would constitute a misdemeanor. Wearing such badges would cost campaigns an added expense and expose circulators to increased harassment. During the Stop Overspending campaign, which our taxpayer group supported, goons harassed and intimidated circulators to stop them from collecting signatures and intimidated those wanting to sign. LR 8CA would require 15%, instead of 10%, of state registered voters to sign initiative petitions for proposed constitutional amendments, making it almost impossible to place grass-roots issues on the ballot. These proposals constitute mere revenge by those who fear fiscal issues like Stop Overspending placed on the ballot by petition and want to guarantee their future failure. Instead of punishing out of state entities that assist Nebraska petition campaigns, critics will only punish Nebraskans by gutting another freedom.
The single subject clause already inhibits placing an initiative on the ballot, because the enacting amendment never defined single subject, so courts can conjure whatever definition they wish. A main reason why citizens place more than 1 subject in a petition is because the topics are related and because it is so difficult and expensive to obtain the 110,000+ verifiable signatures to place an issue on the ballot. In 1994, a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling almost doubled the number of signatures required for fulfilling initiative petition requirements. Finding it more difficult to muster sufficient volunteers to gain the newly-required number, plus other restrictions, petition campaigns increasingly resorted to hiring paid circulators and out of state companies to assist. Then came a requirement that a proposed constitutional amendment could not go before voters by initiative petition more often than once in 3 years. Accumulating hurdles have made it impossible in many instances to rely on a pool of volunteer circulators, much needed in this labor-intensive activity. So difficult is waging a successful venture that obstacles dissuade some from donating or circulating. Campaigns must raise huge war chests to pay circulators or forego petitioning. Ironic that petition critics condemn paid circulators and out of state logistical assistance, both resulting from their previous victories in curtailing petition rights. As restrictions have increased, more petitions have failed ballot access, e.g., two taxpayer initiative petitions in 1996 and 4 taxpayer petitions in 2004. Criticism of a surfeit of petitions is tantamount to declaring that there exists too much involvement by citizens in the political process. I believe that state senators by increments have eroded our petition rights to suffocate the petition process that checks their power. Eradicating this freedom will only encourage them to snuff another.
We must restore our petition rights to the setting envisioned decades ago by progressives, who granted us these rights to redress grievances on taxation and other issues, to act as the virtual second house of our legislature as promulgated by Unicameral advocate Sen. George Norris, as a safety valve for citizen discontent.
If unable to petition for redress of grievances, etc. via petition, we will have lost a lawful means of political expression. Restoring the process to make it easier for Nebraska citizens to circulate petitions as volunteers, instead of extinguishing the petition process, would offer them incentive to become politically involved and keep elected officeholders accountable to the electorate.
Make an effort today to lobby your state senator to vote NO on the above 3 travesties. Freedom does not come free!
Now, two bills and one resolution introduced into our 2007 legislature are poised to trample our petition rights. LB 39 would prevent petition campaigns from paying petition circulators per signature collected and require them to be Nebraska registered voters. Such law would make it more difficult to recruit circulators and cost campaigns additional regulatory expense and paperwork. LB 40 would force petition circulators to wear numbered badges, though a Colorado court invalidated such a law because of privacy and harassment concerns. Failure to wear a badge would constitute a misdemeanor. Wearing such badges would cost campaigns an added expense and expose circulators to increased harassment. During the Stop Overspending campaign, which our taxpayer group supported, goons harassed and intimidated circulators to stop them from collecting signatures and intimidated those wanting to sign. LR 8CA would require 15%, instead of 10%, of state registered voters to sign initiative petitions for proposed constitutional amendments, making it almost impossible to place grass-roots issues on the ballot. These proposals constitute mere revenge by those who fear fiscal issues like Stop Overspending placed on the ballot by petition and want to guarantee their future failure. Instead of punishing out of state entities that assist Nebraska petition campaigns, critics will only punish Nebraskans by gutting another freedom.
The single subject clause already inhibits placing an initiative on the ballot, because the enacting amendment never defined single subject, so courts can conjure whatever definition they wish. A main reason why citizens place more than 1 subject in a petition is because the topics are related and because it is so difficult and expensive to obtain the 110,000+ verifiable signatures to place an issue on the ballot. In 1994, a Nebraska Supreme Court ruling almost doubled the number of signatures required for fulfilling initiative petition requirements. Finding it more difficult to muster sufficient volunteers to gain the newly-required number, plus other restrictions, petition campaigns increasingly resorted to hiring paid circulators and out of state companies to assist. Then came a requirement that a proposed constitutional amendment could not go before voters by initiative petition more often than once in 3 years. Accumulating hurdles have made it impossible in many instances to rely on a pool of volunteer circulators, much needed in this labor-intensive activity. So difficult is waging a successful venture that obstacles dissuade some from donating or circulating. Campaigns must raise huge war chests to pay circulators or forego petitioning. Ironic that petition critics condemn paid circulators and out of state logistical assistance, both resulting from their previous victories in curtailing petition rights. As restrictions have increased, more petitions have failed ballot access, e.g., two taxpayer initiative petitions in 1996 and 4 taxpayer petitions in 2004. Criticism of a surfeit of petitions is tantamount to declaring that there exists too much involvement by citizens in the political process. I believe that state senators by increments have eroded our petition rights to suffocate the petition process that checks their power. Eradicating this freedom will only encourage them to snuff another.
We must restore our petition rights to the setting envisioned decades ago by progressives, who granted us these rights to redress grievances on taxation and other issues, to act as the virtual second house of our legislature as promulgated by Unicameral advocate Sen. George Norris, as a safety valve for citizen discontent.
If unable to petition for redress of grievances, etc. via petition, we will have lost a lawful means of political expression. Restoring the process to make it easier for Nebraska citizens to circulate petitions as volunteers, instead of extinguishing the petition process, would offer them incentive to become politically involved and keep elected officeholders accountable to the electorate.
Make an effort today to lobby your state senator to vote NO on the above 3 travesties. Freedom does not come free!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)