Some debt is encouraged and necessary--for example, debt can be incurred by giving tax breaks to businesses, which will be offset by other factors down the road (e.g. State income tax from employees, sales taxes).
The idea that governments should not have *any* debt is really not ideal, practical, feasible, or pragmatic. In order to grow, a government must spend (e.g. Law Enforcement, Infrastructure, Governance/Regulation)--if the government does not have the funds to do so currently, then it's perfectly acceptable to obtain bonds to expand accordingly.
What makes a debt good versus bad is if the debt is manageable (read: can it be paid off in a sufficient or expedited timeframe if necessary) and how much debt is incurred in relation to the revenue generated by the government.
Nebraska's debt, most would say, is a 'good' debt that could be paid off quickly if necessary. Frankly, the state could stand to incur more debt to bring in outside investment or business to help the state (e.g. Boeing), especially when it had (and still has) one of the largest gluts of over-qualified, college degree-holding workforces working in low-skilled jobs.