Candidate Profiles

Whether it does or not, I believe that some crimes are so heinous that they justify forfeiture of the convicted party's life.

NO--marijuana is a "gateway drug," and its recreational use should not be societally condoned.

YES--As long as there are built-in provisions for exceptions due to extraordinary economic circumstances.

Medicaid as mandated by federal law is eating our budget alive. We are implementing Medicaid reform with the intention of slowing the growth of that program.

If elected, I will do what I can at all times to protect services that are available to citizens in need as a priority.

Reduce Services

The answer to this question hinges on what the proposed tax is for, and what service it is that is being cut or reduced. Human needs should come first.

YES, absolutely. My opponent is completely opposite of me in his position on concealed carry and voted against LB454, calling this matter a "second-tier issue." I do not know why elected officials think they deserve constituents' trust when elected officials do not themselves trust the very people who voted them into office. What most people opposed to concealed carry seem to fail to realize is that citizens do not have to carry a firearm for concealed carry to work in citizens' favor. Crime statistics show that concealed carry reduces the incidence of violent crime, nationwide. Further, folks living in cities like Omaha and Lincoln should NOT be barred from choice regarding concealed carry, as crime statistics clearly show that the larger the city, the more incidence of violent crime. I like the idea of criminals fearing citiizens more than vice-versa, and concealed carry accomplishs this whether citizens carry firearms or not.

A VIOLENT criminal record, NO. However, I support current state law which, if certain criteria are met, can restore a citizen's Second Amendment rights if that citizen has been convicted of a non-violent crime.

I believe that alternative theories to evolution should be taught in schools, but I also believe the decision is best made at the local level, not through legislation.

State Aid to schools is a very complicated formula that does not work with a consistent amount of state funding because part of the funding process relies heavily on local property taxes.

Currently, anyone who desires to obtain a Teaching Certificate and also a job in the classroom has to go through a great amount of education,experience, and review prior to getting into the classroom. I DO support voluntary teacher competency testing, pertaining specifically to subject content, with merit pay as a reward. In addition, I also support the means to remove ineffective teachers from classrooms, regardless of tenure.

School finances, yes. "Performance to permit comparison of schools" is a very ambiguous idea and does not account for schools which have very different and even highly challenging student population needs to address.

The needs of every student and every school district are different. Uniform spending does not recognize that fact.

I support spending money on children's educational needs according to what those needs are. School districts differ greatly from one another. No Nebraska child should be deprived from the opportunity to obtain an quality education.

NO--I taught eighth graders for 33 years without having to resort to physical force in order to discipline other people's children. Discipline begins at home, along with respect for those who teach our children. Also, school administrators should clearly support teachers in matters involving student discipline.

This matter merits consideration and the weighing of all pertinent factors.

Cannot be answered without first seeing the proposal presented to the Legislature by our Education Committee.

I did not support LB1024 and instead offered my own plan to several state senators long before LB1024 was passed. My plan would simply have called for school district reps to engage in discussions over a period of one year, if necessary, before formulating a plan to submit to the Legislature. I have no problem with an Omaha-area "learning community," but I believe that the most important thing needing to be done at this time is to ensure that all Nebraska children have the opportunity for a quality education. I am very concerned that this may not be possible over time if the Omaha Public Schools District would be prevented from expanding its boundaries & would subsequently suffer from a declining property tax base, as has happened in other urban areas. Calm tempers and the best interests of children-our future-should prevail in this ongoing process of study and dialogue.

We need teachers who are multilingual in order to assist children who do not speak English by "bridging" the child from their native language to English and helping children to acquire English. The challenge lies in acquiring qualified teachers to do this moreso than a law as stated in this question. Are the state of Nebraska and its people willing to do our best to attract teachers who are qualified to deal with these needs and challenges?

I am not convinced this is what is happenning, considering the earth's history of global climate patterns. For example, the bibliography to Michael Crichton's novel, State of Fear, is quite interesting, and a recent George Will editorial noted that the National Academy of Sciences has stated that the earth's temperature has increased by an average of 1 degree in the last century, which could easily fit within the "margin of error." Further, some of the same news media organizations which are running headlines and cover stories about global warming were, in the 1970's, reporting that the planet was headed inevitably toward another ice age. Responsible technology and energy development and use continues to be the priority in our world and society.

We are going to see an increase in the size and number of animal confinement farms, especially with the expansion of ethanol production facilities & the availability of feed from these plants to be used for livestock. So, YES, before "the cows get out the barn door," we should be proactive in this matter, not reactive.

To me, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, and I would support a resolution or constitutional amendment to that effect. That having been said, I would not stand in the way (if I were a state senator) of legislation permiting civil unions for gay couples. [Nebraska real estate license law prohibits discrimination against people for, among other things, sexual orientation. I do not see myself operating one way as a Realtor and another way as a state senator.]

see above

YES, provided that business entities are held responsible for their end of the bargain. I advocate a review of what has happened following passage of business incentives which are currently in place in order to determine whether corporate interests have complied.

YES, if a thorough and publicized disclosure of the trade-offs involved merits it. For instance, look at what millions of people heat their homes and water with--natural gas. This is the main fuel source for ethanol production (AND a growing amount of electricity production as well). Further, the U.S. Govt. is engaged in the support of gas-to-liquids technology in order to develop a synthetic fuel that could be used by the military on the ground and in the air. This process would utilize natural gas. Do citizens want to pay these costs in order to get more ethanol in their fuel? Also, a typical ethanol plant employs about 45-50 people, so I'm not sure that qualifies as a "jobs bonanza," and we need to realize that ethanol plants are being established with gusto as the federal government subsidizes them by paying 51 cents for each gallon of fuel that is blended, not to mention what the plants make selling ethanol. Just keep in mind that the real money to be made in ethanol production, at the present time, is from the federal subsidy. The plant being proposed for the Plattsmouth area, for example, is projected to cost around $100 million while having an output of 100 million gallons, ultimately. So that's over $50 million of subsidy money given by the fed. govt. (i.e. our tax dollars). Is ethanol the jobs creator and energy savior it is often touted to be? Thoughtful constituents should ponder this. I'm all in favor of supporting the American farmer, but I think the support here goes way farther toward the few who build, own, and operate ethanol plants. We also need to pay attention to the growing development of biomass-produced ethanol in order to stay ahead of the curve on this essential issue. As a nation, we really need a more cohesive and long-range national policy.

YES, provided that it does not hinder a person with good cause.

This is a federal matter, and I believe the answer should be arrived at by a desire to maintain the American Dream that is a part of so many of us with immigrant backgrounds ourselves, while supporting the security of our borders & our citizens. Those who come to America should have the desire to become U.S. citizens and want to contribute their best efforts to our country.

I support programs which can help those who are new to our country acquire English as well as an education and U.S. citizenship. A growing number of businesses offer these services to legal immigrant laborers, and I believe that this approach is the desirable one.

As a classroom teacher of students whose primary language was not English, I readily saw how difficult it can be for those who can speak English fluently to have problems with English in its written form. Translated, this means YES, we should make ballots available in languages other than English (& not just in Spanish), especially since ballot language can be challenging enough for the "average American" to decipher. Perhaps we could use the machines which are becoming available for disabled voters to provide for this. A U.S. citizen should not be kept from voting because of a language issue, especially since too many Americans fail to participate in the elective process as it is.