Grassroots in Nebraska

Working towards Constitutional, limited government

  • Home
  • About
    • About GiN
    • Principles
    • Operating Philosophy
    • Policies
  • Elections
    • Election 2016
    • Election 2014
    • Election 2012
    • Election 2010
    • Local Elections
    • Sample Ballots
  • Local
    • City of Lincoln
    • Lancaster County
  • State
    • Your Representatives
    • Governor
    • NE Unicameral
  • Federal
  • Contact
    • Subscribe
    • Tip Submissions
You are here: Home / Elections / 2010 Election / Nebraska Needs A State Treasurer! Vote NO on Amendment 2 (2010)

Nebraska Needs A State Treasurer! Vote NO on Amendment 2 (2010)

Originally published October 28, 2010, By Shelli Dawdy. Updated October 24, 2012. Leave a Comment

EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is about an amendment on the November 2010 ballot, not about 2012. For information about amendments on the November 2012 ballot, click HERE.

By Shelli Dawdy

There are two proposed amendments to the State Constitution on the ballot next Tuesday. To read about Amendment 1, click HERE.

Amendment 2 is a proposal put forward by Nebraska’s legislature to eliminate the State Treasurer’s office.

We are intuitively opposed to the elimination of a core constitutional office.  Someone needs to be the keeper of the State’s “checkbook”. Certain financial responsibilities should be conducted by an elected official accountable to the people of Nebraska, not bureaucrats.

There are many other practical and substantive reasons as well. Most of those are very well articulated by the current State Treasurer, Shane Osborn in an October 22 statement he released.

In addition to the reasons articulated by Treasurer Osborn, GiN members and regular readers of this site should know the Treasurer’s office should actually be strengthened in a number of ways associated with reducing the encroachments by federal government on Nebraska’s sovereignty. As we have been reporting for several months, Nebraska receives almost 40% of its annual budget funds from the federal government. A lot of funds taken in through state agency grants indicate the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing. Further, county and local governments are increasingly accepting federal dollars and it doesn’t appear anyone is “minding the store” on this issue. Not only is all of this federal money adding to the federal deficit, it comes with strings and encroaches on the states’ sovereignty. Counties and cities are incorporated by the state. Properly strengthened, the Treasurer’s office could become a stronger “gatekeeper”.

We concur with three former Nebraska governors and the current governor regarding how savings could be found by eliminating bureaucrats currently performing fiscal duties and giving those responsibilities to the State Treasurer’s office.

Shane Osborn’s opinion that the State Treasurer’s office should be kept is worth considering. All of the available information indicates he has done a very good job of keeping his department’s costs in check, to return orphaned funds to taxpayers, and to make Nebraska government spending and budget matters more transparent.[1. During his term, Treasurer Osborn launched a website, nebraskaspending.gov, to make information about Nebraska’s budgetary and spending issues more transparent to Nebraskans. He accomplished this and came in under his projected budget.] Further, he has no particular interest in the matter as he is not running for re-election.

Treasurer Osborn’s statement on Amendment 2 can be read by clicking HERE or by anywhere on the image embedded below.

State Treasurer Shane Osborn’s Statement Regarding Amendment 2 – click to read

Proponents of Amendment 2 are misleading Nebraskans on a number of issues. In both a Letter to the Editor and a Lincoln Journal Star article on October 20, the Senator who introduced the amendment resolution in the Unicameral continued to perpetuate the notion that the elimination of the office will save money and “streamline government”, that the State Auditor’s office conducts similar oversight currently, and that many states do not have a treasurer.

The reasons listed for the elimination do not hold up well to scrutiny. As Treasurer Osborn pointed out, the costs savings are highly questionable, the oversight provided by the State Auditor is far less frequent, and states without an elected treasurer still have one, they are just appointed, not elected. I would add – even if the reason given were true, it is not a compelling reason by itself. Most mothers respond to similar reasoning by children by asking, “If your friends all jumped off of a bridge, would you do it too?”

The Capital City’s paper of record is wrong…once again. In a 10/16 editorial, LJS‘ editorial board summarily endorsed both of the amendments on the ballot. In addition to being just plain wrong by essentially swallowing whole what Senator Utter has told them, the LJS board does itself no favors by sniping at people who believe in limited government, “Many Nebraskans fancy themselves as conservatives in favor of downsizing and streamlining government.” Many newspapers fancy themselves as actually reporting news and respecting their readers.

Why did Nebraska’s legislators vote so overwhelmingly to eliminate the Treasurer?

I believe it is worth asking this question and to examine who introduced, sponsored, and voted for and against the resolution. The sponsor and supporters tell us something about the agenda behind the legislation. A change to the State Constitution is an important issue – it seems worthy of review prior to voting on Tuesday if one’s Senator is up for re-election.  My Senator, Amanda McGill, for example, voted to eliminate the Treasurer. If I didn’t have a long list of other reasons to vote against her, this vote would give me pause.

LR284ca, the legislative resolution that resulted in the proposed amendment[2. Nebraska’s constitution requires that any constitutional amendments proposed by the State Legislature be placed on the general ballot and voted on by Nebraskans prior to its passage.] was entered by Senator David Utter, and co-sponsored by Senators Campbell, Fischer, Hadley, Mello, and Nordquist.

LR284ca passed in the Unicameral on March 26, 2010 with 38 yeas, 8 nays, and 3 not voting. The 8 voting against were Senators Coash, Hansen, Janssen, Lautenbaugh, Louden, Nelson, Schilz, and Stuthman (For a list of Senators voting “Yea” see the bottom of this article). Voting present, not voting were Senators Fulton, Price, and Sullivan. Note: Sen. Fulton did not vote because he believed he had a conflict of interest; he was running for the office in question at the time of the vote. Neither Sen. Price nor Sullivan filed a conflict of interest on this issue.

The elimination of the office has dubious prospects, at best, for saving the state money, means less oversight, further empowers bureaucrats, and eliminates some checks and balances on government. Either the idea of less oversight is attractive to too many of our Senators, or they did not trouble themselves to study up enough on the issue.

WHO VOTED “YEA” ON LR284CA – To eliminate the State Treasurer?

Adams, Ashford, Avery, Campbell, Carlson, Christensen, Conrad, Cook, Cornett, Council, Dierks, Dubas, Fischer, Flood, Gay, Giese, Gloor, Haar, Hadley, Harms, Heideman, Howard, Karpisek, Krist, Langemeier, Lathrop, McCoy, McGill, Mello, Nordquist, Pahls, Pankonin, Pirsch, Rogert, Utter, Wallman, White, Wightman

If you recognize your Senator’s name and want their contact information, click HERE.

If you do not know who your State Senator is, click HERE for assistance in locating that information.

______________

Footnotes and additional information:

Share this article:

  • Email
  • Print
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Pinterest
  • Google
  • More
  • Tumblr
  • Reddit
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn

Filed Under: 2010 Election, Featured, Unicameral Tagged With: 10th Amendment, accountability, amendment 2, amendment no. 2, ballot, ballot questions, campbell, candidates, checkbook, checks and balances, city government, conflict of interest, county government, cut costs, dennis utter, editorial, editorial board, election 2010, election day, election2010, eliminate waste, elimination of treasurer, federal funds, federal grant applications, gatekeeper, government spending, hastings, heineman, how they voted, Legislation, legislators, legislature, lincoln journal star, ljs, local government, lr284ca, measure, mello, ne unicameral, nebraska senators, nebraska sovereignty, nebraska unicameral, nordquist, november 2, orr, oversight, question, roll call vote, shane osborn, state auditor, state checkbook, state legislators, state senators, state sovereignty, state treasurer, streamline government, Tenth Amendment, thone, tony fulton, treasurer, utter

You are here: Home / Elections / 2010 Election / Nebraska Needs A State Treasurer! Vote NO on Amendment 2 (2010)

We welcome civil comments, discussion and debate: Cancel reply

We're glad you've chosen to join the discussion. All comments are moderated according to our official commenting policy.

If you wish to format your comment a bit, simply highlight text, then click the appropriate button. (b = bold, i = italics)

Latest

NE Medicaid Expansion:  Birth of an Entitlement Nation

NE Medicaid Expansion: Birth of an Entitlement Nation

The purpose of this article is to sketch a short history of Medicaid.  … Read full article...

NE Medicaid Expansion:  The Race is On (AGAIN)

NE Medicaid Expansion: The Race is On (AGAIN)

Back on January 17, 2013, I published an article here at the GiN website … Read full article...

A Tribute to GiN Founder Shelli J. Dawdy

A Tribute to GiN Founder Shelli J. Dawdy

We could begin this eulogy with a recitation of the usual facts and statistics, … Read full article...

Why the Electoral College?  Because State and Regional Diversity Matters.

Why the Electoral College? Because State and Regional Diversity Matters.

Where you live, your day-to-day experience gained through interacting with your … Read full article...

VOTE!  It’s Weasel-Stomping Day!

VOTE! It’s Weasel-Stomping Day!

For those of you who have lost your sense of humor during this interminable … Read full article...

What’s Wrong With the Electoral College?

What’s Wrong With the Electoral College?

During my lifetime, I've heard more criticisms of the Electoral College than … Read full article...

Submit News Tips

If you have information about an important issue or event that you believe demands further scrutiny, please visit our Tips Submission page.

Unlocking Solutions

"...in our system it is often more
important HOW we do something than what we do. Priorities and policies (and presidents) change. We cannot change the system upon which we all depend for our rights and representation."

~ Jonathan Turley, Professor of Public Interest Law, Testimony before the Committee on the Judiciary, February 26, 2014
Read more...

Subscribe to new articles by Email!

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Top Articles – All Time

GiN Response to Presidential Popular Vote Advocate

Presidential Election 2012 Electoral College Maps as of October 9, 2012

This most read article is an energetic response to the well-funded, organized effort to eliminate the Electoral College.

TransCanada Trojan Horse: Keystone XL Pipeline Will Increase Gas Prices

TransCanada Trojan Horse: Keystone XL Pipeline Will Increase Gas Prices

We're sure this article has been so well read because it is decidedly unique. If you want a different perspective on the Keystone Pipeline, this is a good place to start.

Dr. Benjamin Carson - Speaking Truth to Power

This popular article was written in 2013, well before voters began to take an interest in the good doctor. It was inspired by a reading of Dr. Carson's book.

Photo of Dr. Benjamin Carson

A Republic If You Can Keep It

Painting of Benjamin Franklin

For the past five years and counting, we've found the continued popularity of this article a source of hope. At the very least, a lot of people are curious about this historical incident.

Archives

SO, we had a 10th Amendment resolution, huh?

And how's that working out for us?
GiN's Nullification Series provides a hint:
  1. Nullification Not the Answer for Health Care
  2. History Has Proven Nullification a Failure: Just Look at REAL ID
  3. Nullification Measures Not Stopping Health Care Implementation (Think Idaho)
  4. Nullification: Are State Level Officials Really Opposed to Federal Encroachment?

Health Care Archive

GiN health care graphic
  • Health Care Law Achilles Heel? A Growing Legal Morass
  • Money For Nothing and Health Care For Free
  • Families Need Medicaid Like Fish Need Bicycles

Search the GiN site

Some Vintage GiN

Governor Heineman Really Liked Purple People Before They Were “Cool”

A Republic If You Can Keep It

Ever-Expanding Welfare: He May Be My Brother, But He's Getting Heavy

47% of Nebraska Births Paid for By the State: Is that Good?

Also of Possible Interest

NE Medicaid Expansion: Birth of an Entitlement Nation

The purpose of this article is to sketch a short history of Medicaid.  Why? "We study the past to understand the present; we understand the present to guide the future."     -- … [Read More...]

NE Medicaid Expansion: The Race is On (AGAIN)

Back on January 17, 2013, I published an article here at the GiN website entitled "NE Medicaid Expansion: The Race is On."  I followed up with an entire series of articles … [Read More...]

Subscribe: New Articles Delivered By Email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Quoteworthy

"Nothing is easier than spending the public money. It does not appear to belong to anybody. The temptation is overwhelming to bestow it on somebody."

~ Calvin Coolidge, Fourth Annual Message, December 7, 1926

Copyright© 2009–2018 · Grassroots in Nebraska · All Rights Reserved · Powered by Jovian Limited

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.