Now
Fair
74.0°
High
87°
Low
72°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 10/2: Our spending priorities

Comments 27 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Tuesday, Oct 02, 2007 - 12:10:52 am CDT

Let me see if I have this right. All of Nebraska’s representatives and one senator voted against the federal health insurance program for low-income children. The vote was whether to increase funding by

$35 billion over five years. That amounts to $7 billion per year. The increase was to be paid for by a

61-cent-a-pack increase in cigarette taxes.

Are those negative votes OK with Nebraska voters?

The Pentagon is asking for $190 billion for the “war on terror” (translate as Iraq and Afghanistan). $190 billion would fund the $7 billion per year for children’s health for about 27 years (they are providing funding by increased taxes, and asking for it for only five years).

Why is $7 billion too much and $190 billion OK?

The Pentagon request is unfunded. Or is it funded by the debt of this nation to other nations? When will citizens have enough of the casual spending of billions of borrowed dollars?

When will Republicans wake up to the fact that the people they elected are not conservative spenders? When will someone draw a line in the sand and say, “that’s enough” to the waste and uncontrolled spending happening in the federal government? 

When will someone dig deep enough to find out where the billions already allocated for Iraq and Afghanistan have been spent? Has it been tracked or expended wisely?

Just wondering.

Marilynne Bergman, Lincoln

Water figures distorted

The recent headline “Corn costs 1,750 gallons of water a bushel” (LJS, Sept. 21) distorted the facts and gave readers the misconception that irrigated agriculture overuses Nebraska’s water resources.  Let me put agriculture’s water use in context.

Each year, roughly 95 million acre-feet of precipitation falls on Nebraska. Of this, 90 percent is consumed at the land surface through plant growth and evaporation, and the remaining 10 percent becomes surface water flows or groundwater recharge. Of the total water consumed in the state, irrigated agriculture accounts for only 5 percent to 10 percent. 

Nebraska farmers already have made tremendous strides in using water more efficiently. Farmers are using deficit irrigation, changing crop patterns and adopting new irrigation technologies and seed genetics to produce more with less water.

As an example, farmers in the Republican Basin used 7.6 to 12.4 inches of irrigation water on average in 2006 to raise their crops.  This amounts to 7.5 to 30 percent less than the amount that could have been used under regulation.  Farmers are striving to be good stewards of our water resources.   

While irrigators need to be constantly vigilant to make wise use of our water, disparaging the amount of water used by farmers will not resolve the state’s water challenges.  Instead, we need to focus on how to better manage our supply and not forget we all benefit from irrigation in agriculture every time we go to the grocery store or gas pump.  

Jay E. Rempe,

State director/governmental relations, Nebraska Farm Bureau

Keep the fair where it is

Once again the other half of this great state (Lincoln and points east) and its leaders are at it again. It just seems as though they can’t leave the State Fair alone. This time it is University of Nebraska-Lincoln Chancellor Harvey Perlman making the loudest noises.

I for one can’t understand his wanting to build a research center for UNL. All we have had since the middle 1960s is a football school. I thought a school of higher education was to educate our young people, not to be a farm system for pro sports. When football came into the foreground at UNL, academics became a secondary meaning for the school.

Just when the fair is gaining attendance and starting to make some money again, along comes the idea to move the fair. Just how many tax dollars does Perlman think Nebraskans have extra for this folly? Everything is in place at State Fair Park, and the Lancaster Event Center lacks enough buildings to support the fair.

Our chancellor needs to realize that he is not God over this state. Hopefully, the State Fair Board will stand up to this bully and keep the fair at State Fair Park.

Bob Lathen, Grand Island

Who profits from war?

What if war were not profitable?

A news report by Lisa Myers, NBC News, airing in May, revisited in a Sept. 21 broadcast by Jim Lehrer, provokes thought about war in relation to business, profit and greed. The report concerns the supply and choices of body armor for our troops in Iraq.

Javier LaRosa, whose Marine son is heading to Iraq, has launched an effort to raise private funds to purchase body armor called Dragon Skin for current troops. In a nutshell, the military is blocking his efforts in favor of their preferred product called Interceptor, even though Point Blank, its manufacturer, is apparently being sued by some police departments for providing defective body armor.

Bottom line: Dragon Skin appears to be less expensive and perform better in tests, but the military-industrial complex, largely with the help of military insiders, has so far effectively barred it from use. A Col. Gabe Patricio, who has retired and started his own body armor “consulting” business, seems to be calling the shots with the backing of friends in high places in the military. The army’s own Nevin Rupert, engineer, expert, who knew the most about Dragon Skin and gave it favorable reports, was barred from military-conducted Dragon Skin tests and soon after fired.

It was noted that there are not huge amounts of money involved in such things as body armor. However, this little controversy is surely a microcosm of the business practices of the military-industrial complex, where major projects cost billions and trillions. 

It begs the question: Would we be involved in a war right now if a) it were being fought by a representative societal cross-section of American children and b) if it were not profitable for American business?

Perhaps peace activists have gotten it all wrong. What if we passed a constitutional amendment that reads: All and any wars waged by America must have all logistics supplied by a neutral country with no business ties to the United States.

Gene R. Bedient, Lincoln


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
What a mess wrote on October 2, 2007 6:25 am:
" Mr Bedient points out the real winners in the "war" on Iraq. Big Business who supplies the war effort for a healthy profit. Watching "The War" on PBS makes me wonder how much support there would be for the Iraq conflict if we had the draft and rationing as a result. "
Wm. Morris wrote on October 2, 2007 6:33 am:
" Thanks Ms. Bergman for asking the question. If Halliburton could make billions off of sick and dying kids, they probably would. It is likely that the actual amount that is being asked for is not significant enough for the ruling corporations to find attractive. Meanwhile, Nebraskan Republicans seem to believe any candidate with an (R) after their name will be a fiscal conservative. It just isn't so, as our record and growing federal deficit shows. About 10% of the federal budget goes to pay interest at this point. We are headed for trouble. "
here it is wrote on October 2, 2007 7:38 am:
" The Dems want to expand this SCHIP program so that "kids" up to AGE 25 and families making up to $85,000/year would be covered. Does that sound like the most needy group of people? "
James wrote on October 2, 2007 7:56 am:
" Mike: What about all the water being used for ethanol production? I just cancelled my Farm Bureau insurance. Too many backwards thinkers, like yourself. "
Think a second on SCHIP wrote on October 2, 2007 7:56 am:
" First problem was the funding, how can you justify paying for it with a tax on a dimishing return as the prime governmental/social focus is to stop/ban smoking. Then were is the appropiation to come from. So comman sense would dictate to fully fund SCHIP we here in Lincoln should repeal the smoking bans so the funding is more available and in greater quantity. Smoke more/sell more/more funding. I do not understand how many here think the TAX confiscsation is unlimited, and everyone is so happy to pay this new tax, that new tax etc. Our parents probably paid 20% in total taxation, we are now hovering at over 50% between all taxes, where is the breaking point. SCHIP may be an outstanding idea, but only an idiot would vote for a program destined to fail financially based on another government agrenda ie eventually banning tobacco/smoking, the revenue source for the program. I do believe someone mentioned a coffeehouse tax, wouldm't that be a more logical source? Or since it targets a differant lifestyle of american that would be too much. "
Zoomie wrote on October 2, 2007 8:15 am:
" Mr Bedient certainly has latched onto one of the more distasteful facts of modern warfare (at least for US forces). War profiteering has not been as profitable (nor as protected by an Administration) since the Civil War (and Lincoln railed against war profiteers, unlike Bush). Indeed, the recent attention to Blackwater security has revealed that a supervisor, in charge of just 34 men, is paid 120% MORE than 4-star General David Petraeus, US Commander of forces in Iraq! That amt is actually far higher, as Blackwater is actually a sub-sub-subcontractor, and each level takes its cut first. And that is paid by US taxpayers, to a company with a solid, proven history of indiscriminate killings of Iraqis (destroying the concept of winning over the Iraqis to our side), who escape unpunished for any and all crimes they commit. Indeed, recent documents show our State Dept actively aids and abets these crimes! Even our soldiers have total contempt for these new Hessians, fighting only for the dollar, not their country or its ideals (unless one of the ideals is greed). Welcome to the GOP-style warfare, designed to enrich their friends while improvishing our Treasury! "
JMK wrote on October 2, 2007 8:31 am:
" If perlman wants the fair moved, let him pay for it with the proceeds from the athletic dept. I am sure they can spare the full 175 million dollars. "
kk wrote on October 2, 2007 9:10 am:
" Jay, I'd like to know where you are finding your data. I don't know if as the state director/government relations man for Farm Bureau you are privy to some secret data but a quick search shows that while 330 million gallons of water (surface and groundwater) are used daily in Nebraska for public supply, almost 8.8 Billion gallons are used daily for irrigation. (USGS data, 2000 figures) Maybe my math is fuzzy but it seems like 8.8 Billion would be a bit higher than "five to ten percent" of the total water consumed in the state. Maybe more like 90 to 95 percent. I applaud the efforts of the Republican River farmers but I just have to wonder how much water they would be using if there were no restrictions or incentives to reduce usage. "
I guess wrote on October 2, 2007 10:14 am:
" I am going to change parties to independent. Bring on the green party!!!!Hope someone like Hagel runs. I was leaning toward dems but today see it has approved another 150 billon for the iraq fiasco. I wonder just how rich the entire washington bunch will be if this thing is ever over. Blackwater is a subsidy of Halliburton so nothing will ever be done to them. Cheney is hidden someone in the halliburton dynasty. I thought Nixon was a crook but this bunch has him beat. "
SB wrote on October 2, 2007 11:01 am:
" Water Drain v. Economic Gain; LJS article recently stated that 95% of all used ground water is used for agricultural irrigation and Jon Halzfaster, chairman Nebraksa corn board, quoted yesterday that over 60% of Nebraska corn is irrigated compared to only 14% nation wide. From start to finish one gallon of ethanol will use 985+ gallons of water (ref; Colorado’s natural resources website) compared to 94 gallons to pump and refine 1 gallon of gasoline and ethanol is 20-30% less efficient to burn. When you muddle through all the intangibles and numbers it boils down to one point; You are growing corn on sandy arid land with a water table that has been depleted for 30 years. A agree cold heartedly that America needs a solution to foreign oil as much as we need to reduce our energy consumption (number one in the world per capita), however corn is not the answer, and my only hope is that when biomass and cellulosic ethanol become viable within the next few years the corn ethanol crash (that will come, it’s just a matter of time) will not deter this technology from taking place, that is to say there is enough water left to even grow weeds. I suggest we switch the state motto now to ‘the switchgrass state.’ "
Sean wrote on October 2, 2007 11:24 am:
" I don't think that the main issue with the SCHIP proposal is the actual numbers of the caps for age and income. I think there should be a cost-of-living adjustment made to the income limit. Living on $85,000 per year in rural Nebraska is much different than living on $85,000 per year in urban New York City (even with rent controls). As well, what is wrong with allowing families to get government assistance for dependents that are in college? Are they not allowed to have the same benefits as many of those with private insurance? "
A note on body armor wrote on October 2, 2007 11:38 am:
" It's worth mentioning, in regards to body armor, that if soldiers are killed in the line of duty and they're using Dragon Skin rather than the military's preferred brand, the military is denying spouses death benefits. Why we're not completely outraged over that fact alone is beyond me. "
Wally wrote on October 2, 2007 11:59 am:
" Bob, your letter about the fair really doesn't make sense. If you're tired of UNL being a "farm system for pro sports" then wouldn't you want a research center where academics can study and develop ideas to benefit Nebraska in the future? "
Sean's Right wrote on October 2, 2007 1:51 pm:
" Sean you are so right what is so wrong with giving college students insurance to help out the parents? Also, since this will be tax payer supported, I think I will have a law passed stating people should let college students live in someone house rent free. We would start with Sean's. What was that? You didn't ask for it. Well that is okay what is wrong with allowing families to get assistance for dependents that are in college? "
Edgar Pearlstein wrote on October 2, 2007 2:08 pm:
" $176 million for moving the state fair! That's more than $100 per capita, or $400 per family. I'd rather spend that kind of money on things other than subsidizing amusements. "
Why wrote on October 2, 2007 4:31 pm:
" Why do we need another Technology Park? We already have on located around 1st & Superior. There is a huge sign that faces I-80 west of I-180 that proudly proclaims University of Nebraska Technology Park. Let's develop that first and expand there before taking over the State Fair Grounds. BTW, who, in their right mind would want to be in a classroom that is next to the sewage treatment plant? "
Darren wrote on October 2, 2007 5:18 pm:
" I think that we need to tax alcohol at the same rate of increase as tobacco. And why we are taxing things we just as well tax condoms, sex toys, adult books, high fat fast foods, donuts, video games I think the list can go on. "
War vs Profit wrote on October 2, 2007 7:02 pm:
" First off understand war is a moneymaker, throughout mans history not just modern war, no question. From political capital to corperate capital war is money. Roman sword/armor manufacurers under "contract" to thier government made fortunes in thier time too. Currently individuals from both parties in our system are "profiting" from the war. Kaiser and Higgins made millions in WW2(BTW initial design of the Kaiser Liberty Ships cracked in the middle in rough seas thru 42/43), as well as Boeing, Consolidated, GM, the list goes on, so this is not a new issue. Private soldiers are also a historical fact and sometimes needed in the American military, from the civilain "rangers" and "militia" of the Continental Army, high paid local civilian "Scouts" used by the US Cavalry in the Indian Wars, the AVG in China (Flying Tigers), and many more. American military equipment by law is aquired from the "listen close" lowest bidder, (change the military appropiation law circa 1942 before you start complaining)irregardless of quality. The designs of thousands of items are not the best, look at the M16/AR15 fiasco, great private design, government intervention with propellant change (cheaper) and a "self cleaning rifle" turned into a real problem in actual operation, all for a cost saving of $.015 per round in 1967. War profiteering is not a GOP issue, enough Texas made concrete went to SVN under LBJ to pave the entire country, a LBJ owned a financial interest in every rubber plantation in SVN. So the profiteering is OK depending on the side of the aisle. Final point, uniformity of military equipment is required precisely to prevent liability issues. That is why privately aquired combat equipment from firearms to body armor is not sanctioned or allowed in combat zones. Civilian .223 Hollowpoints are more lethal/destructive than NATO 5.56 ball, so should the troops be allowed to purchase thier own ammo for better protection? Violation of the Law of Land Warfare. I was an Infantryman for 23 years, I never was a fan of body armor, I prefered the chances of a thru and thru than a partially slowed deformed piece of metal making a larger wound. I also by choice prefered the consequences of death over other options afforded by "surviving" because of my torso was "protected". I also understood the combat was pure luck, do I dodge right or left, into the path of the bullet or away...pure chance..no reset "
DP wrote on October 2, 2007 7:35 pm:
" I love how people get so caught up in Halliburton without looking at the facts. Halliburton won this government job through a bidding process. They were the low bidder and have the experience to do the job. It's no different than any other government job that goes up for bid. Just because the VP has his name around the company, people think there is a big conspiracy. It's not like there are hundreds of companies out there that can do this type of work. "
abby wrote on October 2, 2007 8:30 pm:
" this whole moving the fair thing is RIDICULOUS spend spend spend i agree that perlman should pay for it--NOT the hardworking tax payer of Nebraska. i find it very selfish "
Zoomie wrote on October 2, 2007 9:42 pm:
" Here it is - Dems want to allow people living in places like NY can get the same level of benefit as people living in Nebraska. Or do you think "blue" state residents are supposed to pay more but get less? CRS study last year found what costs $40,000 in NE (the max limit for SCHIPS, I believe) costs $82,000 in NY. So why shouldn't the max limit in NY be $82,000? And the age 25 thing? Uhh, people, its standard insurance policy to cover dependent kids who attend school, up to age 25. BCBSNE, Mutual, Coventry...they all allow you to cover your kids if they're full-time students, until age 25. Or again, are you saying we deny health insurance to young adults 18-25, even as they try to get advanced degrees (don't conservatives whine about how our kids should do better in school, especially compared to foreign countries...where all citizens always have health coverage!). "
Don wrote on October 2, 2007 10:13 pm:
" From some of the remarks on this page, some of you people need to listen and watch something else besides NBC and PBS for your news and facts about the war in Iraq. "
Oh goodness wrote on October 2, 2007 10:14 pm:
" Who is accepting these ideas of profit anyways. Some of us remember World War II and some even remember World War I, most remember Korea, and Vietnam, profitable or not, war is war and too even suggest that a Neutral country do some of these logistics is begging the question of what is war. War is not something that someone on the outside looking in can say, you do this and you do that, war is fighting until a victor either emerges or both parties give up because there is no end. Wars have been around longer than any of us can remember and the outcomes are not always pretty. Some people make a profit in war others do not, I would suggest that the United States has not made a profit in this war or any war, because of the programs we start and never finish and the money we loan out and never get back. If we, the Americans, were to collect all of the bad debts from around the world from countries that we have helped, we would not have a deficit . "
Jim wrote on October 2, 2007 10:41 pm:
" I agree with Bob Lathen. Why in the world thru the years were'nt the buildings at the State Fair kept up and in repair a little at a time every year. There are enough inequities in both state govt. & Lincoln govt. in the spending for so many lavish things I see, that you will not find in the states I have lived in. Lincoln as well as a good part of the U.S. is so gung ho on education education education, and we don't even have people to do the jobs that don't demand a college education. Once they get all the high degrees than it's lording it over those that find a college degree isn't for them. Basically, the State Fair to Perlman is way beneath him, only to him the lesser intelligent would go there. Why isn't the vision put on industries with jobs for people so the younger ones can see a future instead of gangs and stealing. What kind of a future do the young have to look forward to with Nebraska's taxes. A repairman today told me he was moving back to Iowa as cost of living and taxes were so high there was no future here. Well gee, how long has that been going on. The youth have been leaving for years and an arena and convention center are NOT going to cut it. Any more taxes and I'm on my way too!!! It is unbelievable all these educated leaders seem to have absolutely NO vision or answers, excent raise taxes and spend them!!!! "
Tax-me-more wrote on October 3, 2007 12:32 am:
" Please lets have free health care, I still have approximately 47% of my income available for confiscation for your lack of resposibility in health choice, or your priorities in personal finances. That cell phone maxi-plan, satelitte TV, big screen, SUV whatever is way more important in your life, when I a now responsible for your healthcare costs. What would be a fair rate, another 30%, to provide a service someone actually believed in our FREE MARKET system would actually lead to a benifit for his/her lifestyle after years of study and sacrifice. Why now be a Doctor or medical proffesional when there is no personal gain in your sacrifice. Why should I spend years in school, internships, etc to work now in a government system that pays a flat rationed rate for my services, sounds fair to me, maybe they should do it for free out of pure guilt over the suffering of others. RATIONED health care does not, has not and will not work here or anywhere in the world, when there is no responsibility shown in personal health by those recieving the care. Smoke, drink, over-eat, questionable sexual practices, whatever your choice is, how am I and your neighbors responsible for your additional medical costs based on your poor priorities in life. As for the 18-25 year old medical plan, lets see the military does provide free health care for you and your dependants, and after you leave active duty there is the fine VA system, but again that actually requires a level of personal responsibilty and heaven forbid, and a 4 year personal sacrifice. And you also get college tuition assistance/re-imbursement/GI-Bill but again a sacrifice is demanded, And there are MOS'S that will not get you deployed, if you are smart enough, not many NAVY types sail ships through Bagdad. "
Alan wrote on October 4, 2007 10:38 am:
" UNL is certainly a valuable asset. However I'm tired of them being the 800 pound gorilla in every debate. They have become a bully in the land use arena. If anyone thinks Antelope Valley is more about flood control than football traffic they need to speak with a civil engineer without a vested interest in the project. "
Janet wrote on October 7, 2007 10:24 pm:
" Someone responded to Seans' letter with the question of what would be wrong with letting college students live rent free, to help out their parents. How typical of the stingy, to take a good idea ( the schip extension) and push it to a ridiculous extreme. For one, nobody is forcing anyone to pay for the extension. After all, if you object, then don't buy cigarettes. and second, we're only talking about a lousy 61 cents per pack. That is literally nothing compared to the trillions we are paying for enriching the likes of Haliburton, and other war profiteers. What a twisted, skewed sense of prioritys for anyone to think that any amount of tax payer money is OK, if it goes to war, but that the cost of health care for our kids should be questioned. What a country. "

Ads by Yahoo!