Nebraskans have a couple of questions

Yahoo

2 days ago

Nebraska's congressional delegation is shown in Washington. From left: U.S. Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer, R-Neb., and U.S. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. Feb. 5, 2025. (Courtesy of Nebraska Governor's Office)
Welcome to another 'What If?' press conference, questions for Nebraska's congressional delegation in Washington. Since our last session, the White House has tried to shutter the U.S. Department of Education, our tariff 'policy' resembles a yo-yo, the inaptly-named 'big, beautiful bill' has uglied up the nation's balance sheet, and curious Americans have taken to looking up both 'emoluments' and 'original sin.'
Let's start with the aforementioned BBB. The House kept vampire hours to pass it by a single vote, after which the yays, apparently in a fit of sleep-deprived hubris, congratulated themselves before the bill went to the Senate. We have a couple questions:
Your own accounting firm, the Congressional Budget Office, determined the BBB gives 60% of its tax breaks to the top fifth of the income bracket, yet cuts food assistance and health care to millions of poorer Americans. How does this benefit the country and what problem does it solve?
The five of you belong to a political party that has historically railed against deficits. The CBO projects the BBB will add $3.8 trillion to the nation's deficit over the next decade. Please explain what the economic advantage is here, given the dismal history of such cuts: See Reagan 1981, G.W. Bush 2001 and 2003 and Trump 2017 for details.
We'll move on. During a recent congressional hearing the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security couldn't come up with the meaning of habeas corpus when she was asked to define it. This comes on the heels of recent interviews in which high-ranking administration officials, including the president, couldn't guarantee that federal detainees would be given due process. Hmm?
Assuming you still support habeas corpus and due process, when and how should Congress intervene when the administration ignores these most basic of principles in a country in which the rule of law is paramount?
This next question is actually a matter of math. According to the Partnership for Public Service, using numbers from the federal Office of Personnel Management, 'in absolute numbers, the federal workforce is slightly smaller than it was 50 years ago, even as the U.S. population has increased by nearly two-thirds during that time period.'
Even though the courts have tied up or reversed much of the Department of Government Efficiency's work, how do you square those numbers with DOGE's scorched-earth policy, especially since the American public has been provided scant evidence of findings of waste, fraud, and abuse, the triplex premise on which DOGE hangs its hat?
Time to talk tariffs. To date, even a casual observer would conclude that the president's on again, off again tariff proclamations have roiled markets and created uncertainty with little resulting economic benefit. As you know, Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution gives only Congress the power to levy tariffs.
Even though previously enacted laws allow Congress to let the president set tariffs in certain situations, could you explain and defend the 'qualifying' situation in which we find ourselves and detail how Congress sitting on the sidelines at this juncture in the levying of tariffs benefits Americans?
The president has pulled $2.5 billion from Harvard University, threatened its tax-exempt status, tried to block enrollment of foreign students and pretty much wants a say in whom it should hire and what it should teach. All this to curb what he says is Harvard's anti-semitism, a charge which, while acknowledged in part by the school, remains without specifics. (Nevermind that the president hosted a cryptocurrency dinner during which a number of coins carried virulently anti-semitic names.) Some have argued that Harvard is simply the poster child for the administration's 'war on higher education,' in the guise of eliminating DEI, CRT, essentially any voice contrary to its liking.
First, should the government be telling colleges and universities what to teach, who should teach it and who is allowed to learn?
Please respond to the following quote as it relates to social studies and history curricula. 'History is not there for you to like or dislike. It is there for you to learn from. And if it offends you, even better, because you are less likely to repeat it. History is not yours to change or destroy. It belongs to all of us.'
Could you explain what problem is solved by closing the Department of Education, which, as you know, sets no curriculum?
Finally, does it ever occur to you that some in Washington have no idea what they are doing or worse, know what they are doing, know it's bad for America and do it anyway? Asking for some friends.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX