Recent editorials published in Nebraska newspapers

Omaha World Herald. March 15, 2018

Water diversion from the Platte proposal would need public hearings

Transferring water from one river to another is a notion that’s often been contemplated in Nebraska, but never achieved. That notion might be very close to reality, however.

Two natural resources districts - Holdrege- based Tri-Basin and the Alma-based Lower Republican - have partnered on a project that would take unallocated water from the Platte River and divert it to the Republican River. The goal: to ensure Nebraska’s long-term ability to meet its water-supply commitment to Kansas via the Republican River under the three-state agreement that also includes Colorado.

The NRDs would carry out the transfer via canal, culvert and pipeline over the Platte-Republican divide near Smithfield in south-central Nebraska’s Gosper County and run it south into the Republican via Turkey Creek.

The NRDs have worked on plans for three years and recently submitted their initial permit paperwork to the state Department of Natural Resources.

The diversions would occur only when water on the Platte exceeds the demand under existing water rights - probably during two or three years each decade, according to John Thorburn, the Tri-Basin general manager. The NRDs’ diversion claim would be junior to all existing water rights.

The NRDs have approached this project in a responsible, professional manner, and the aim is worthy. Still, if the state’s consideration of the project moves forward, public hearings are warranted. Nebraskans, rural and urban, need a solid understanding of the project’s details and ramifications. And it’s imperative to have the public’s input.

The Platte is an invaluable resource for irrigators as well as a drinking water source for Lincoln and, to a lesser degree, for Omaha. The Platte’s waters also provide a vital environment for waterfowl and other creatures.

Before approval of any diversions from the Platte are considered, Nebraskans need to have a full discussion so everyone can understand precisely what would be involved.

_______

The Grand Island Independent. March 14, 2018.

Tariffs not good news

President Trump has placed new tariffs on steel and aluminum. We join with the leadership of the Republican Party, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg-Business Week, the Nebraska congressional delegation, Gary Cohn (President Trump’s chief economic adviser, who has since resigned) and a legion of other people (both foreign and domestic) who believe the new tariffs are not good for the United States or the world economy.

Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard economist who advised George W. Bush and is the author of the most widely used textbook in college economics, stated that “on trade, President Trump appears to be listening to advisers far outside mainstream economics.” He further said that no country ever wins a trade war. Yes, people in economics do agree on some ideas; 93 percent believe that tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare. Given the interdependence that exists throughout domestic and international economic systems, Nebraska may be hurt by this return to protectionism.

The implementation of tariffs invites reciprocity. Already countries around the world have threatened to impose tariffs or impose other restrictions on U.S. exports. The European Union, as reported in Sunday’s media, said it “stands ready to slap rebalancing tariffs on about 3.4 billion dollars’ worth of U.S. steel, agricultural and other products.”

U.S. agriculture is the best in the world; it has what economists call comparative advantage. It can and will feed much of the world. It thrives on free markets. Unfortunately, the Trump administration has placed our access to foreign markets in jeopardy. Certainly Nebraska agriculture would have benefited from the Transpacific Trade Pact had President Trump chosen to support the pact.

Steel and aluminum are basic materials used throughout the American economy. The increase in the price of those materials will ripple up through the economy. The Wall Street Journal reports that 16 times more workers are employed in U.S. steel-consuming industries than workers employed in the steel industry. The beverage industry, which markets using metal containers, has already told consumers the price of their products, which include cans of beer and soda, will go up.

According to the Washington Post, employment at U.S. iron and steel plants has plummeted from 188,000 workers 30 years ago to 86,000 today, but because of automation as much steel is being produced today as was produced 30 years ago. Automation has dramatically reduced employment opportunities in that sector of our economy. The Post report further stated that tariffs will not bring back those jobs lost to automation.

Free trade rewards the low-cost producer in international trade. It forces domestic industries to compete or leave the market. The cars we drive today are much better automobiles because Detroit car manufacturers had to be meet international competition.

International trade results in winners and losers. As presented in Professor Mankiw’s textbook, consumers as a group win, export-based businesses win and import-competing businesses lose. It appears that Trump’s motive for imposing tariffs is based more on politics than economic realities. Trump has signed steel and aluminum tariffs that exempt Canada and Mexico and open the door for possible exemptions for other countries.

Our congressional delegation needs to do everything it can to protect our access to international agricultural markets. Protectionism is a road to mediocrity and should be abandoned as soon as possible. We would prefer to see America as a leader in world trade and international diplomacy.

___

Lincoln Journal Star. March 13, 2018

Free trade, not tariffs, a boon for Nebraska, US

As federal trade policy shifts and wobbles toward a somewhat uncertain endgame, one thing remains crystal clear: Today’s smart trade pacts have unquestionably benefited this state and country.

The five Republicans who make up our state’s congressional delegation understand this, with Sen. Ben Sasse and Rep. Adrian Smith strongly condemning the implementation of tariffs - most recently, on imported steel and aluminum - and the negative impact those will have on business and consumers alike.

Many columnists on this page have correctly noted that tariffs represent a tax on American consumers, with the duty applied at the border ultimately paid by the end user. They’re just bad business and compound the flat-out wrong rhetoric President Donald Trump used last week when saying trade wars are “fun” and “easy to win.”

That’s a dangerous game to play, one with costs far too great to trifle with.

The history books are littered with cautionary tales of protectionism gone wrong, from the disastrous tariffs instituted around the Great Depression to the shortsighted withdrawal from trade pacts that cost Nebraska beef producers both access and sales to Asian markets at a time of already low commodity prices.

The White House seems to focus its attention on trade deficits, an imperfect means of measuring these deals’ benefit, as a win-or-loss metric. Even though the truth is much more nuanced than using that as the only yardstick, Nebraska still comes out way ahead, turning a $2.8 billion trade surplus in 2016.

A prime example of how free trade maximizes efficiencies and improves all participants’ lots comes from a readily apparent source in Nebraska - agriculture.

Compared to the U.S., Canada has relatively few manufacturers that produce major farm implements and machinery. Meanwhile, our northern neighbor specializes in the production of young livestock, as a delegation that included Canada’s deputy ambassador to the U.S. and its Minneapolis-based consulate general pointed out when meeting with the editorial board.

It’s no coincidence that these two fields represent Nebraska’s single greatest export to ($218 million) and greatest import from ($105 million) Canada in 2016, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Nationally, it’s a $47.2 billion relationship that supports 9 million jobs stateside, including $2.4 billion and 57,400 jobs in Nebraska.

And Canada was merely Nebraska’s second-largest trading partner from 2016, as Mexico - the third partner in the North American Free Trade Agreement and a major consumer of Nebraska agricultural goods - held the top spot that year.

Protectionism, tariffs and other anti-free-market steps threaten the widespread benefits of such agreements, needlessly jeopardizing jobs and industries. Nebraska, and the U.S. as a whole, benefit from free trade agreements.

______

Kearney Hub. March 16, 2018

Nebraska misses boat to collect online taxes

The Nebraska Legislature was wrong to end this year’s debate on a way the state could collect sales taxes from online retailers. Facing a $200 million revenue shortfall, the state should be scraping for every penny it can get, but on Thursday a legislative proposal fell victim to a filibuster and died. Considering our state government’s fiscal health, we wonder why lawmakers didn’t leap at the potential opportunity to collect an additional $30 million to $40 million annually through online sales taxes. That money certainly would have been welcomed.

The online sales tax revenue could put a significant dent in our state’s revenue gap, and, of greater importance, it would force online retailers and their customers to help support state and local government, instead of allowing buyers to dodge sales taxes by doing business online.

It’s only fair that customers and online businesses should be paying, collecting and remitting sales taxes to help support schools, pay police and maintain streets and highways.

Why should brick-and-mortar stores and their customers carry the load alone? What’s fair about that?

Customers who buy online just to save money are doing a dual disservice to their communities. No. 1, they are failing to support the local retailers who need customers to keep their doors open. No. 2, customers who buy online are cheating others in their community by avoiding sales taxes on most of their online purchases.

Again, the measure lawmakers were debating - LB44 - could have helped to close the state’s funding gap and put online retailers on a level field with hometown stores. They’re the businesses that do their best to donate to local sports teams, buy an animal at the 4-H auction, or support Goodfellows.

Gov. Pete Ricketts opposes LB44, and many senators followed his lead, but the new law would not have gone into effect unless the U.S. Supreme Court declares it’s legal for states to make online retailers collect sales taxes and share the money with states where the sales occurred.

Currently, only sales originating with online retailers headquartered in Nebraska are subject to a sales tax. Ricketts mischaracterized LB44 by saying it is unconstitutional. Actually, the law would not take effect unless the Supreme Court rules it’s OK for states to receive sales taxes from online sales. If that’s the ruling, Nebraska would have been prepared.

___