2011 Legislation

[icejammer]

"I pray to God that, in an effort to pinch these pennies, we don't reduce the level of service to where we have a tragedy," LeClair said.

Aside from the fact that this is just a quote pulled out of what was likely a much longer statement, it seems like a valid concern.  Why the beef?  If cuts have be made, so be it, but be smart about it.

[almighty_tuna]

Why the beef? If cuts have be made, so be it, but be smart about it.

That's not the point.  You can analyze every scenario and come up with the absolute best, smartest way to make cuts and you will still have that same 'the sky is falling' reaction because as union president it's his job to ensure union members keep their jobs.  

LeClair's comment is a valid concern if the scenario was "If there's a fire, to save money we'll only send the ladder truck if the first responders determine it's necessary."  However, I'm still waiting to hear on the news where Aunt June died of a heart attack in the produce aisle because the ladder truck was not deployed to Bag & Save or "Dammit, we forgot the Jaws of Life on the ladder truck.  Now, Joe Omaha will die in this terrible car wreck because we didn't bring the ladder truck".

Simply put, if you know the emergency is not fire related, why bring equipment you don't need?  I'm going hiking in Colorado next week, but I'm not hitching a boat to Estes Park "just in case".

[joeglow]

Why the beef? If cuts have be made, so be it, but be smart about it.

That's not the point.  You can analyze every scenario and come up with the absolute best, smartest way to make cuts and you will still have that same 'the sky is falling' reaction because as union president it's his job to ensure union members keep their jobs.  

LeClair's comment is a valid concern if the scenario was "If there's a fire, to save money we'll only send the ladder truck if the first responders determine it's necessary."  However, I'm still waiting to hear on the news where Aunt June died of a heart attack in the produce aisle because the ladder truck was not deployed to Bag & Save or "Dammit, we forgot the Jaws of Life on the ladder truck.  Now, Joe Omaha will die in this terrible car wreck because we didn't bring the ladder truck".

Simply put, if you know the emergency is not fire related, why bring equipment you don't need?  I'm going hiking in Colorado next week, but I'm not hitching a boat to Estes Park "just in case".

I am glad someone gets it.  No one is saying anything nearly as radical as 3 men to a truck or closing of fire stations.  We are simply saying it makes ZERO sense to send a truck whose sole purpose is to fight a fire to a non-fire emergency.  However, ANY time ANY cut is made, the fire union handbook (for all cities, including Omaha and Oklahoma City) says to scream about how supporters want babies to die in fires.

[icejammer]

Why the beef? If cuts have be made, so be it, but be smart about it.

That's not the point.  You can analyze every scenario and come up with the absolute best, smartest way to make cuts and you will still have that same 'the sky is falling' reaction because as union president it's his job to ensure union members keep their jobs.  

LeClair's comment is a valid concern if the scenario was "If there's a fire, to save money we'll only send the ladder truck if the first responders determine it's necessary."  However, I'm still waiting to hear on the news where Aunt June died of a heart attack in the produce aisle because the ladder truck was not deployed to Bag & Save or "Dammit, we forgot the Jaws of Life on the ladder truck.  Now, Joe Omaha will die in this terrible car wreck because we didn't bring the ladder truck".

Simply put, if you know the emergency is not fire related, why bring equipment you don't need?  I'm going hiking in Colorado next week, but I'm not hitching a boat to Estes Park "just in case".

I am glad someone gets it.  No one is saying anything nearly as radical as 3 men to a truck or closing of fire stations.  We are simply saying it makes ZERO sense to send a truck whose sole purpose is to fight a fire to a non-fire emergency.  However, ANY time ANY cut is made, the fire union handbook (for all cities, including Omaha and Oklahoma City) says to scream about how supporters want babies to die in fires.

SO WHAT if the union president screams bloody murder?  Make the cuts where they make the most sense with the least risk, why does it have to become an "us-vs-them" mentality?  Certainly, reducing equipment will increase risk in the event of response to a large event, so figure out how to best manage that risk - you're not going to eliminate the increased risk, hence the (valid) concerns on the part of some.  Don't get your undies in a bunch just because the union president does.  If everybody genuinely worked toward a common solution, instead of all the bantering back and forth, solutions would come a lot more readily, as everybody has a finger in the pie, instead of everybody thinking it's their way or the highway.

[almighty_tuna]

SO WHAT if the union president screams bloody murder?

I agree.  I don't think that was ever at issue.

[joeglow]

Why the beef? If cuts have be made, so be it, but be smart about it.

That's not the point.  You can analyze every scenario and come up with the absolute best, smartest way to make cuts and you will still have that same 'the sky is falling' reaction because as union president it's his job to ensure union members keep their jobs.  

LeClair's comment is a valid concern if the scenario was "If there's a fire, to save money we'll only send the ladder truck if the first responders determine it's necessary."  However, I'm still waiting to hear on the news where Aunt June died of a heart attack in the produce aisle because the ladder truck was not deployed to Bag & Save or "Dammit, we forgot the Jaws of Life on the ladder truck.  Now, Joe Omaha will die in this terrible car wreck because we didn't bring the ladder truck".

Simply put, if you know the emergency is not fire related, why bring equipment you don't need?  I'm going hiking in Colorado next week, but I'm not hitching a boat to Estes Park "just in case".

I am glad someone gets it.  No one is saying anything nearly as radical as 3 men to a truck or closing of fire stations.  We are simply saying it makes ZERO sense to send a truck whose sole purpose is to fight a fire to a non-fire emergency.  However, ANY time ANY cut is made, the fire union handbook (for all cities, including Omaha and Oklahoma City) says to scream about how supporters want babies to die in fires.

SO WHAT if the union president screams bloody murder?  Make the cuts where they make the most sense with the least risk, why does it have to become an "us-vs-them" mentality?  Certainly, reducing equipment will increase risk in the event of response to a large event, so figure out how to best manage that risk - you're not going to eliminate the increased risk, hence the (valid) concerns on the part of some.  Don't get your undies in a bunch just because the union president does.  If everybody genuinely worked toward a common solution, instead of all the bantering back and forth, solutions would come a lot more readily, as everybody has a finger in the pie, instead of everybody thinking it's their way or the highway.

I agree.  However, as a prudent taxpayer and voter, there has been a fair amount that I think needs to be questioned.  Can we trust a mayor to look out for our best interest when one of the major reasons he was elected is because of funding and support from the fire union?  Can we trust a mayor to have our best interest in mind when he hears taxpayers say to make sensible cuts to the fire department, he leaves said meeting to go to McFly's to hang out with LeClair and ultimately, no cuts are made?  Can we trust a fire union that creates Facebook pages personally attacking people who come out against their actions?  

Lastly, can we trust a fire department that shows they have ZERO understanding of compromise and reasonableness?  

These are all reasonable questions that impact MANY things.  One current one is the CIR and how it is set up.

[Bosco55David]

What are your thoughts on this:

http://www.ketv.com/news/27331193/detail.html

Better????

Much better. My thoughts?

Meh.

[joeglow]

Brenda Council wants money to make vegtables more affordable:

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDoc ... /LB200.pdf


So, I get to pay Federal Taxes that are used to pay farmers to NOT farm their fields.  I then get to pay state taxes to subsidize the purchase of crops because they are too expensive.

Sometimes, I REALLY hate our government.

[Coyote]

Unicameral Passes Changes To DUI Laws
It's Major Step In Fight Against Drunken Driving, Some Say

At the forefront of the bill, ignition interlock devices would be mandatory for first and second DUI offenses. The device would prevent a vehicle's engine from being started if the driver's alcohol content was greater than a specified level.

The bill also allows prosecutors to look back 15 years for previous DUIs. That allows for more serious charges against repeat offenders. It works to prevent long legal battles over license revocation, which would save taxpayer money.

[Big E]

http://omaha.com/article/20110601/NEWS0 ... |expletive|-test

Hadn't caught this part before:

Alcohol consumption is barred in designated swimming areas, on roads, in parking lots and in certain other marked areas. Alcohol in containers larger than a gallon are not allowed.

Everyone knows the only way to enjoy wine in your RV at a state park is from a 2 gallon box.  What a bunch of elitists.

[S33]

Or it could possibly be them finding a way to stop keg parties in public areas. I don't think they really have a problem with the Franzia drinkers...  :roll:

[Erik]

Brenda Council wants money to make vegtables more affordable:

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDoc ... /LB200.pdf


So, I get to pay Federal Taxes that are used to pay farmers to NOT farm their fields.  I then get to pay state taxes to subsidize the purchase of crops because they are too expensive.

Sometimes, I REALLY hate our government.

Agreed.  It is not the place for government to set prices within a free market.  The government is considered an enemy to the free market, as a matter of fact.

I supported the bailouts for the 'general welfare of society,' but that is a special case the founders had to include within the constitution.  Even then some people will disagree and have the right to.

[HuskerDave]

I understand that, but there should still be a system which dissuades from having one party repeatedly elected to the white house because large population centers are able to cast the majority of votes - or vise versa.

I realize this quote is from months ago - but I'm new here and catching up...

We used to have just such a system, at least concerning legislators.  The House of Reps has always been by popular vote, but as originally planned, the Senate was by state appointment.  It wasn't until passage of the 17th Amendment that Senators were elected by popular vote.  In this way, states' rights were reduced - and with it, the electoral power of large population centers was increased at the expense of more rural areas.

As for the chief executive - President - that position was never intended to have as much power as it does.  Our system of checks and balances has somewhat weakened in the past 70 years, beginning with the FDR administration.

[ricko]

On the other hand, rural states with small populations like North Dakota wield a vastly disproportionate amount of leverage in the U.S. Senate.

[HuskerDave]

On the other hand, rural states with small populations like North Dakota wield a vastly disproportionate amount of leverage in the U.S. Senate.

Not true.  They wield precisely the same amount of leverage - two senators.  That was precisely the design of it, and the reason for a two-house Congress.

[Big E]

I think his point is a senator from a Dakota would represent a few hundred thousand while a senator from California would represent 15+ million.

Yes, two houses help alleviate this, but by no means eliminate it.