Krusin' the Capitol
By Nebraska State Senator Lowen Kruse
2004
Week 9
March 5, 2004
Hi
We are still working on the budget. Our Appropriations Committee will make
its final decisions Monday. Will go to the body on March 16.
Our Committee officers have been testing wills with the governor's staff for
several days. The problem is so tough we do need to be somewhat together on a
proposal. Then the floor will do as it pleases. Well, not quite.
If someone wants to put in their favorite cause for $1 million, s/he must
show where to take out the same amount. Since we have been working on such
"scenarios" all week, we have tried all those balancing acts. Some senator who
tries a plan on the floor will have to learn the impossibilities on his/her own.
We used a computer to test every theory quickly. A fiscal officer has put
the entire budget on an Excel spread sheet, with a summary page. It includes
possible cuts, possible delays on payments, possible bills for revenue, and
every bill now on the floor which has a fiscal impact. The percentage changes,
such as 1% increase in salaries and 10% expected increases (each year!) for
health insurance are all programmed in.
So we make the shifts, to see what happens to four year's of budget: this
year and the next three. Cutting a base changes the "Out Years" [years #3 and
4] and of course the governor's new initiative to deal with child abuse really
hits the out years.
It is fun of a sort. Helps if you have a weird sense of fun. Plug in a new
number in one cell and watch the whole board move.
What did we learn? We cannot possibly cut our way out through agencies. You
could wipe out all the agencies and still be in deficit. We have to cut new
spending. The largest one is school aid. I really do not want to cut that
because that is our way of increasing property tax relief. However, it appears
we must drop back $50 million a year or we will never be in balance. (That
still leaves an increase.)
The governor and several other budget people want to increase sales tax for a
12-month period, for this temporary crunch. There will be a big push to
divide that with an income tax increase, which would still be below the 1977
level.
I would prefer to take it out of cash reserve funds The crunch is temporary
and if the economy continues to improve and we hold steady we will be able to
pay it back in 18 months. But that pulls us down to zero and naturally makes
folks nervous. The forecast is so gloomy that we do not need the reserve risk
factor. That board actually predicted that next year will be a slower
economy than this year. Unreal, but we still have to cover it.
Enough calculations. That, however, does give you a very fair analysis of
the state of Nebraska's projected economy and budget.
In the midst of these complexities, a couple of emails and a phone call said
it is really quite simple. Just cut across the board. Gave me a smile.
I do not make fun of that idea, as it sounds like good sense. Seems right.
But it does not come close to working because our agencies are so different.
A 10% cut to K-12 schools, as above, would be $60 million and it all gets
shifted to property taxes. The same with aid to cities, counties, ESUs and
community colleges. That's not a cut.
Two of our agencies are revenue producing. If we cut them we cut our income
by 8 times the cut. Our court system and probation are together and have
already been cut so severely they will not be able to keep courts open across the
state on the usual basis. A cut to them would cause them to fail to fulfill
their constitutional duty. Which gets interesting. Courts are a different
branch of government. So Legislative and Executive would cut Judicial to
functioning part time. Whoa.
Then there is the agency with only two staff. Cut them 20% and you are
actually ordering a reduction of salary. In several ways, not legal. Another
agency has many staff. They would cut 10% of the staff. Can do, with pain.
Another agency spends only 1/3 of budget on staff. They will not cut anyone. No
pain. Just reduce public service, like mailing books out to those who need
them. Is that fair?
Another agency is very small and extremely frugal. Gives us back money at
the end of the year and sometimes asks for less $$ next year. We are not about
to cut them. At the other end, an agency has cleverly figured the budget so
that they can shift funds and feel no pain at all. Why not cut them twice as
much?
Final example. We have many agencies which charge fees, which means they
have a lot of cash funds. Let's say that our budget provides only 10% of their
budget. Cut them 10% and it is only a 1% reduction. How is that fair?
The fun news this week was that Senator Chambers stalled bills enough that
leaders had to pull the lethal injection (death penalty) bill for the year. He
hates that bill and he could permanently delay it by taking extended time on
other priorities.
He started on Tuesday by dividing an amendment into 15 parts, then filing
several amendments on Part #1, and drolly announcing that "We will be taking a
leisurely stroll through this very complicated bill." Two full days later he
said he was ready to wrap up Part #1 and would prepare amendments for Part #2
for the next day. Very few people can pull this off and fill all the time with
comments about grammatical errors. But he can.
So scuttle lethal injection. We then rolled through advancing 15 bills in
about 30 minutes.
You keep rolling.
Lowen
Back to Top
Krusin the Capitol Index
Home Page
|
