Recently, US Senator Pete Ricketts of Nebraska defended the One Big Beautiful Bill. Yet, former Omaha Mayor Jim Suttle could not stomach it and wrote a Public Pulse letter of the Omaha World-Herald, published August 21, 2025, as follows:
Odd, Suttle reminds me of Jeff Dunham’s muppet Walter:
Jim Suttle’s Pulse letter is proof of how rotten to the core the Democrats are. The One Big Beautiful Bill provides tax cuts for working Americans. From no-tax-on-tips to no-tax-on-overtime, working people benefit right now as these provisions are retroactive to January 1 of this year. At same time, taxes on Social Security was nearly eliminated while health savings accounts were expanded. These were Republican ideas implemented only by Republicans. The Democrats all voted in lock-step against the bill because of their “orange man bad” rhetoric.
Meanwhile, RightCheer.com (https://rightcheer.com/dan-osborn-a-normal-democrat-for-abnormal-times/) covered a campaign speech of US Senate candidate Osborn, who is running as an independent.
Osborn is one of many progressives who refuse to be in the Democrat Party and are supposedly not. From US Senator Bernie Sanders to Nebraska State Senator Megan Hunt, the independent label is used to push progressive agendas, and they end up siding with the worst members of the Democrat Party.
To quote the article, “One guest asked which party Osborn would caucus with if elected to the U.S. Senate. “In the current landscape of politics, there’s only one party that I can see myself caucusing with,” Osborn responded. When the guest pressed which party that would be, Osborn admitted, “not Pete Ricketts’ party.”“
Well, there you have it folks. Need I say more?
I have very mixed feelings about the Big Beautiful Bill. On the one hand, was it better than anything that the Democrats would have ever given us? Yes. Yes, it was.
But... was it as good as it should have been? NO. No, it definitely wasn't.
Two of the ways that it is a disaster waiting to happen:
1. there were measures in the bill to enable the sale of federal lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management to ranchers (land that originally was claimed by these ranchers, land that they're being forced to lease), other land owners, and to cities to facilitate the building of more housing (to help resolve the housing shortage and stop driving the middle class out of their homes. That measure was instead flipped on its head. It's still in the bill, but now--instead of promoting the sale of land to help the little people, now it's enabling the sale of land to big businesses to "promote entertainment."
2. There were measures in the bill that were legal protections related to the second amendment/gun rights. Those protections were stripped from the bill.
It makes me SO FURIOUS that Pete Ricketts is campaigning endlessly on this, pointing to this bill and celebrating how he voted for it. He VOTED FOR THAT. Remember this when it comes time to vote for him again, and REMEMBER that HE could have spoken up and stopped that, and... he didn't.
And that name "Big Beautiful Bill" just really makes me cringe. I wish we could find a way to make it illegal for Congress to pass big bills of any kind. Especially when it comes to Congress and law-making, big is NOT beautiful, it's ugly. Slim down the bills, limit the focus, make them more targeted--and absolutely INSIST that there has to be real tax dollars available to fund whatever the bill is about, or it can't be passed. No more of this borrowing trillions of dollars to do all the things just because.