Omaha World-Herald. November 14, 2017
State follows voters’ wishes with death penalty plans
The Ricketts administration is keeping the faith with Nebraska voters who in 2016 strongly supported reviving the death penalty.
The Department of Correctional Services announced Thursday that it plans to use a new combination of four drugs to carry out the next execution. The previous, three-drug protocol was replaced because the state could not legally obtain the drugs.
Jose Sandoval, considered the ring leader of the 2002 Norfolk bank robbery murders, would be the first person executed using these drugs: diazepam, fentanyl citrate, cisatracurium besylate and potassium chloride.
The state’s next step is for Attorney General Doug Peterson to request a death warrant.
It’s been a while. Nebraska last carried out the death penalty in 1997, when it executed murderer and rapist Robert E. Williams.
Some members of the Legislature highlighted the delays in carrying out the death penalty as a key reason for repealing it in 2015. They had watched the state struggle to obtain the necessary drugs for lethal injection, and the courts had already outlawed using Nebraska’s previous method, the electric chair.
A referendum revived capital punishment. Now voters frustrated with the pace of the state’s latest implementation of the death penalty will need to practice patience. This new drug protocol, like others before it, will face legal challenges. The appeals process exists to reduce the likelihood of an innocent person being executed.
Death penalty opponents say they plan to question the unproven protocol, although that might be an uphill legal battle. Opponents also continue to appeal the legality of involving a three-judge panel in Nebraska’s sentencing process for capital cases.
The incremental nature of the process was to be expected. The wheels of justice typically turn slowly in capital cases.
But they are turning again, as sought by 61 percent of the Nebraskans who voted to restore the death penalty.
___
Lincoln Journal Star. November 15, 2017
Nebraska’s farmers, ranchers need NAFTA
With the fifth round of negotiations on the North American Free Trade Agreement set to begin Thursday, Nebraskans whose livelihoods are in or tied to agriculture have reason to be nervous.
Uncertainty surrounding the fate of the pact between the United States, Canada and Mexico - from which President Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened to withdraw, possibly as a last-ditch bargaining chip - has caused Mexican buyers to begin searching for other sources in case they lose access to the American producers they’ve long trusted.
If Trump truly wants to put America first, as he reiterated during his recent visit to Asia, he’d be best served by doing so in a manner that protects the financial interests of America’s farmers and ranchers, whose output benefits the country as a whole - particularly at a time of strain in their industry.
Canada and Mexico have been the biggest customers of American farm commodities, with the Washington Post reporting agricultural exports more than quadrupled from $8.9 billion in 1993 to $38.1 billion in 2016.
For as much as Trump frets about and equates a trade deficit as being unfair, giving short shrift to agriculture would only compound matters. Nebraska alone recorded a $2.8 billion trade surplus in 2016, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, with $6.4 billion in goods exported - more than half sold to Canada and Mexico - compared to $3.6 billion in imports.
Without the market access that currently exists for Canada and Mexico, the current slump in U.S. agriculture would be even worse. High supply has depressed commodity prices; NAFTA has served a critical role in mitigating it, at least somewhat, by making it easy to export within the continent.
And, in a state where agriculture supports one in four jobs, the timing to potentially pull the rug out from the leading industry couldn’t be worse.
Nebraska’s personal income has declined by 0.3 percent through the first two quarters of 2017, according to the Pew Charitable Trusts. The country as a whole, meanwhile, has seen 1.3 percent growth in that time. Among the 10 states to see declines, seven are in the central U.S.; Colorado and Missouri are the only states bordering Nebraska to report growth.
This spring, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue convinced Trump not to withdraw from NAFTA by showing him an electoral map, Politico reported. With farm and ranch country being among the president’s most loyal strongholds, a move to leave the pact could endanger the livelihoods of many who supported Trump.
With only two more rounds of negotiations scheduled, the upcoming meeting carries significant weight for Nebraska and the Midwest - and the president must heed their concerns about the potential damage a senseless exit would do to agriculture.
___
McCook Daily Gazette. November 17, 2017
Timing couldn’t have been worse for Keystone XL
The news from South Dakota couldn’t have come at a worse time for supporters of the Keystone XL pipeline.
TransCanada Corp. announced Thursday that its older pipeline had sprung a leak, spilling 5,000 barrels of oil - 210,000 gallons - onto agricultural land in Marshall County. It was discovered quickly, the pipeline shut down, and officials don’t believe it has reached any bodies of water.
But the fate of the pipeline that would extend TransCanada through 275 miles of Nebraska, will be decided by the Nebraska Public Service Commission on Monday.
First proposed in 2008, the pipeline’s fate was in limbo until it was rejected by President Barack Obama, then resurrected by President Donald Trump.
Along the way, in 2012, the Nebraska legislature gave the governor power to approve the pipeline route, but that law was overturned, throwing the decision back to the Public Service Commission.
The 36-inch pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of oil from northern Alberta, Canada, to refineries along the Texas Gulf Coast.
We can thank Canadian tar sands for the relatively stable price of gasoline, but tar sands can’t be pushed through pipelines. That requires dilution of the bitumen that will be refined into oil, to give it the consistency of crude so it will flow.
The exact chemicals used to dilute the bitumen are a trade secret, but pipeline opponents say they include known carcinogens.
In previous spills into rivers, the substance at first floated, as one would expect from oil, but soon separated into its components, the heavier bitumen sinking to the bottom of the stream, making cleanup extremely difficult.
The current Keystone pipeline can handle nearly 600,000 barrels of oil a day, passing through the eastern Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma.
Even if Nebraska’s PSC approves the route, groups like Bold Nebraska and the Sierra Club have vowed to challenge in court the use of eminent domain by a foreign corporation to obtain right-of-way for the pipeline.
Proponents say pipelines are the most efficient way to transport oil, requiring significantly less energy to operate than trucks or rail, and have a lower carbon footprint. As the Keystone XL controversy illustrates, however, they come with their own concerns over potential environmental damage and denial of property rights.
Rail uses existing infrastructure, but carbon emissions, speed and accidents are a drawback.
Trucks are often the last link in the transportation chain, but also have carbon and safety concerns.
Ships can actually be a cheaper way to transport oil, depending on the route, but have some of the same drawbacks as rail and trucks.
Tesla introduced a new electric semi truck this week with a 500-mile range, as well as a sports car with record acceleration, but it will be a long time before crude oil isn’t a key component of our transportation needs and overall economy.
We owe it to future generations to make sure energy is delivered in as safe a manner as possible, but we should be able to do that without penalizing responsible use of energy resources.
___
Kearney Hub. November 18, 2017.
Overseas corporations that import Nebraska ag products want to know the people they’re doing business with, Axtell farmer Steve Nelsen told members of the Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation in the Oct. 27 newsletter. As Farm Bureau president, Nelson had just returned from a Nebraska trade mission to Japan, and wrote, “One of the things I find true, no matter where you go in the world … is that personal relationships are very, very important. International buyers want to see who they are dealing with.”
That’s the human side of trade, and it seems to be missing from President Donald Trump’s treatment of agricultural trade. By withdrawing from negotiations for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and in threatening to withdraw the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement, Trump shows he needs to know more about the farmers and ranchers he’s harming with reckless trade strategies. Ag trade is important to farm states, and also the nation.
This year, the United States could ring up a trade deficit exceeding $400 billion. Pledging to put “America first,” Trump believes the way to end the imbalance is to abandon multiple-nation agreements in favor of negotiating one-on-one, but so far the global reaction has been negative. The U.S. could be left on its own if Trump follows through.
The president should abandon his “my way or the highway” tactics and instead take a cue from Nelson. Relationships matter, especially here at home, where people in farm states like Nebraska voted Trump into the White House. Farmers deserve Trump’s attention. He could start by deepening his knowledge of trade and how farm country relies on it.
Foreign demand boosts prices for livestock and grain and chips away at the U.S. trade imbalance. If Trump examined the statistics, he would discover that - almost without exception - ag products produced in states like Nebraska create surpluses that help counter deficits from importing products manufactured overseas.
Trump needs to keep his hands off NAFTA or he risks undermining U.S. trade surpluses such as: meat, $5.2 billion; dairy and eggs, $1.3 billion; cereals, $12 billion; feed, $6 billion; and miscellaneous edible products, $3.2 billion. The export of hides, oil seeds, wood pulp, animal oils and vegetable fats also created surpluses, according to federal data from 2016.
The Farm Bureau’s Nelson wrote that withdrawing from the TPP negotiations likely cost Nebraska farmers $378 million. What will the damage be if Trump does away with NAFTA?
Stakes are high, Nelson said. “When it comes to trade, we need to be in the driver’s seat, not just along for the ride.”
___
Please read our comment policy before commenting.