North Platte Telegraph. April 6, 2024.

Editorial: Rail, public safety win with FRA 2-person rule

After state Sen. Mike Jacobson’s bill on requiring two-person train crews stalled in February, we echoed his “don’t hold your breath” skepticism that Washington would impose that highly necessary safety rule nationally.

Like Sen. Jacobson, who took the Unicameral floor Tuesday to announce a new Federal Railroad Administration rule doing just that, we’re most happy to have been too pessimistic.

With possible limited exceptions, Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe and the other major U.S. freight railroads must keep at least two people — an engineer and a conductor — aboard their trains.

Bravo. The FRA has absolutely made the right decision for the safety of railroaders and the communities and states through which their trains run.

We congratulate the people from North Platte who helped produce this outcome, as is fitting for the host city of the world’s largest railyard.

The unionized railroaders of U.P.’s Bailey Yard, and especially their engineers and conductors, know better than anyone the personal and operational risks of running today’s massively long trains in the West’s sparsely populated vastness with a lone engineer in the cab.

They earnestly shared many rail-safety concerns when FRA Administrator Amit Bose came to North Platte Sept. 27 after the perchloric acid explosion and fire inside Bailey that forced evacuations.

Kudos also to Sen. Jacobson, who made the two-person crew issue the first bill he introduced as a state senator after succeeding former Sen. Mike Groene.

Other Nebraska lawmakers had walked that road. Their bills never made it out of committee.

After a year of perseverance, Jacobson got 30 senators to back his Legislative Bill 31 on Groundhog Day, exactly two months before Tuesday’s federal ruling.

That couldn’t quite break a railroad-encouraged filibuster. But Jacobson’s effort helped apply pressure on the FRA alongside Kansas, Colorado and other states with two-person crew laws.

We again gratefully acknowledge that Union Pacific reached agreement a year ago with the SMART-TD conductors union to maintain two people in the cab in Nebraska and on the U.P.’s most historic routes — at least until the next nationwide union contracts.

The new FRA rule provides more certainty. Its 223-page decision rightly cited the risks of one-person crews on trains carrying hazardous materials.

Only about 60 of more than 13,000 public comments on the two-person rule opposed it. Last year’s disaster in East Palestine, Ohio, surely influenced that margin.

But the FRA ruling also cited the need for “adequately protecting the safety of a one-person train crew member” as well as the public.

Engineers can’t leave the engine. Conductors fix safety risks discovered en route. They precisely inform first responders about dangerous materials on board, as they did at East Palestine.

But conductors’ eyes also prevent some car-train or pedestrian-train collisions. They’re the very first responder when they happen. And if either a conductor or an engineer suffers a medical emergency — particularly miles from the nearest ambulance — each can give the other immediate aid when every minute counts.

Technology makes one-person crews or automated trains possible. But it typically isn’t the safest answer.

Thanks to the FRA for agreeing.

___

Lincoln Journal Star. April 4, 2024.

Editorial: Don’t rush new tax plan through at session’s end

Gov. Jim Pillen’s plan to cut property taxes by raising sales tax is, after Tuesday, in limbo, where it should remain through the dwindling days of the Legislature’s 2024 session.

LB388, the bill that was to carry the tax-related pieces of Pillen’s plan, still exists, sent to second-round debate. But it was advanced without the Revenue Committee amendment that would have increased sales taxes and imposed property tax revenue caps on city and county governments.

Advancing the zombie-like “shell bill” leaves the measure without a funding source to make up the state revenues that would be transferred to cut property taxes.

Given that the sales tax increase, which could have raised the state sales tax rate by as much as 1 cent to 6.5 cents and added taxes to more goods and services, was rejected by senators, and the other major state revenue source is income taxes, which the Legislature cut last year, it’s difficult to see how Sen. Lou Ann Linehan can come up with another source to bring in the millions needed to implement the property tax cuts.

If that source cannot be determined, Linehan, the plan’s primary proponent, has said she will ask that no action be taken on the bill in the Legislature’s final handful of days this session.

If, however unlikely, a source can be found, any new bill would still have to be drafted, then debated, where it is sure to encounter enough opposition to make it nearly impossible to pass this session.

It needs to be noted that opposition to the sales tax increase came from conservative groups and senators, who rightfully called it a tax shift, not a cut; by business groups concerned about the negative economic impact of adding more costs to goods and services in the inflationary economy; and by advocates for those with low incomes and renters who, again, rightfully see the sales tax as regressive.

Local governments, public schools and those who understand the history of the damage to cities, counties and schools done by tax revenue caps strongly opposed those aspects of the plan, which would have primarily benefited large landowners and those with high-valuation properties.

That broad opposition is, frankly, another reason that LB388 should be left for dead this session. Putting together such a radical change in state tax policy shouldn’t be done on the fly or in piecemeal fashion when there’s no time to study the ramifications of any new plan.

Pillen has claimed that senators who voted against his plan favored tax increases, as there’s a high likelihood that property taxes will increase next year. But, in rejecting the sales tax measure, the senators literally opposed a tax increase.

Put bluntly, Nebraska’s taxpayers can live for another year under the current system, enough time for a new plan, one that can be more broadly supported, to be drafted and introduced into the new Legislature in January.

___

McCook Gazette. April 4, 2024.

Editorial: Rejecting LB764 upholds fairness in Nebraska

The proposal to reinstate the winner-take-all electoral system in Nebraska, as outlined in LB764, is a misguided attempt that threatens to undermine the principles of fairness and representation in our electoral process.

While proponents argue that returning to a winner-take-all system would streamline Nebraska’s electoral votes and amplify the state’s voice in presidential elections, a closer examination reveals significant drawbacks and potential consequences.

One of the primary arguments put forth by proponents of LB764 is the notion that Nebraska’s current split electoral vote system diminishes the influence of rural voters.

However, this assertion overlooks the fundamental purpose of the electoral college: to ensure that every voice, regardless of geographic location, is heard in the selection of our nation’s leaders. By allocating electoral votes based on congressional districts, Nebraska’s current system promotes inclusivity and diversity of opinion, reflecting the nuanced political landscape of our state.

Moreover, proponents of LB764 argue that returning to a winner-take-all system would encourage presidential candidates to engage with the entire state, rather than focusing solely on densely populated areas.

While this may sound appealing in theory, the reality is quite different. Under a winner-take-all system, Nebraska would become less valuable to presidential candidates, as they could secure all of the state’s electoral votes by simply winning the majority of votes statewide.

This would likely result in candidates neglecting rural communities and issues in favor of appealing to urban centers where the most votes can be garnered most efficiently.

Furthermore, LB764 threatens to diminish Nebraska’s electoral influence on the national stage. By reverting to a winner-take-all system, Nebraska would forfeit its status as a unique political entity and blend in with the majority of states that employ this method.

This could result in presidential campaigns largely ignoring Nebraska in favor of states with larger electoral vote counts, further marginalizing our state’s role in shaping national discourse and policy priorities.

Opponents of LB764 rightly argue that the split vote system encourages candidates to engage with Nebraska’s diverse electorate and fosters competition in presidential elections.

By maintaining our current system, Nebraska remains a battleground state where candidates must address a wide range of issues and concerns, rather than simply catering to the preferences of a narrow demographic.

In conclusion, LB764 represents a step backward for Nebraska’s electoral process. Rather than embracing a winner-take-all system that prioritizes efficiency over fairness and representation, we must uphold the principles of inclusivity and diversity that define our state. We urge the Unicameral to reject this proposal and preserve Nebraska’s split electoral vote system for the benefit of all Nebraskans.

END