- More Columns
- Marriage Tribunal
- Capitol Corresondent
Capitol Corresondent
Fashioning a balanced budget: toughest job ahead
If this were an even-numbered year, the regular session of the Nebraska Legislature would be, under almost every scenario, finished, wrapped up, "sine died." In the Cornhusker state, even-numbered years accommodate the second regular session of a single Legislature. Second sessions are limited to 60 legislative days unless extended, which seldom happens. The first session of the 98th Nebraska Legislature eclipsed its 60th legislative day earlier this week.
While state lawmakers have made overall good use of the first two-thirds of their work days, the best is yet to come; perhaps it's more accurate to say that the toughest part of the current session lies ahead. Legislators still must accomplish their foremost obligation: fashioning a balanced budget for the FY 2003-2005 biennium, at a time when projected revenue lags behind current spending by a substantial, significant amount, in excess of $750 million. Deliberations focused on cutting spending and raising revenue will dominate the last 20-plus days of this year's 90-day session.
In this tough situation, all relevant information is important. Last week, such information was bolstered by the release of a public opinion survey of 400 registered Nebraska voters. The survey was commissioned by Voices for Children in Nebraska, a non-governmental organization with a solid track record of advocacy for children and families, primarily those who are economically disadvantaged.
The Nebraska Catholic Conference was among several other advocacy organizations that had input into, and cooperated in the sponsorship of, this survey, which was conducted statewide March 13 and 14.
Abundant Awareness
Nebraskans are aware of the state budget deficit, that's for sure, and are taking it seriously. Eighty-eight percent of the 400 respondents said that they have seen, read or heard about the deficit. And, more than 97 percent said they regard the situation as either "very serious" (69.8 percent) or "somewhat serious" (27.5 percent).
Of the 400 respondents, 14 percent described themselves as liberal, 38 percent described themselves as moderate and 45 percent described themselves as conservative.
The survey compared two of the general approaches that have received attention for dealing with the budget deficit. Forty-seven-and-a-half percent (47.5%) of the respondents said they most closely agree with the idea of a combination of across-the-board spending cuts of approximately five percent together with certain new and targeted tax increases. This idea is generally tied to some legislators. On the other hand, 36.8 percent said they most agree with the idea generally tied to the governor, that is, across-the-board spending cuts of approximately 10 percent in combination with an increase in the cigarette tax. The number jumps to 51.8 percent for the "unicameral idea" if those who are undecided but leaning that way are counted. The "governor's plan" jumps to 40.8 percent with those who are undecided but leaning that way.
Determining priorities is the crux of the budget matter, of course, on both the spending and revenue sides of the equation. The survey presented a list of six general items, all of which have attracted publicity as being considered for cuts: the University of Nebraska and higher education; elementary and secondary education; the criminal justice and prison system; early childhood education for disadvantaged children; healthcare for disadvantaged children and the elderly, i.e. Medicaid; and childcare subsidies for the working poor. The question asked on each was whether to cut 10 percent, five percent, or not at all.
Every category received less than 35 percent support for a 10 percent cut. Budget cuts were least supported in the Medicaid category. Sixty-three-and-a-half percent (63.5%) of the respondents said they would make no cut in that program; 22.5 percent endorsed a five percent cut and only 13 percent endorsed a cut of 10 percent. That result is encouraging; especially given the fact that Medicaid eligibility for children and their caretaker relatives has already been significantly reduced, as a component of budget cuts during regular and special sessions in 2002.
The same breakdown--no cut, five percent cut, 10 percent cut-on the other categories is as follows: K-12 education, 62.5%, 23.5% and 13.5%; early child--hood education for disadvantaged children, 49.8%, 28% and 20.8%; childcare subsidies for the working poor, 40.8%, 36.3% and 21.8%; University of Nebraska and higher education, 30.5%, 37.5% and 30% and criminal justice/prison system, 23%, 39.8% and 33.8%.
The results were also quite revealing on the revenue side. Those surveyed were asked to express their preferences regarding types of tax increases. Increasing the income tax received the least amount of support; 74 percent said no. The greatest support was for increasing the state's tax on alcoholic beverages, a whopping 85.5 percent, followed by 73.8 percent support for increasing the cigarette tax.
While 56 percent of the respondents opposed a general sales tax increase, 58.3 percent supported expanding the sales tax base to include certain items now exempt, such as repair services, snack foods and temporary employment services. However, there was strong and significant opposition, 71 percent, to reinstating the sales tax on all food.
Was there anything earth shattering in the results of this survey? Not really. However, these results add to the information available to those who make decisions and set priorities, and they merit consideration in solving the large and complicated puzzle.
Bad Bill Killed
An update on a bill previously addressed.
On March 11, the Legislature's Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee reported LB 299 as indefinitely postponed.This bill proposed to mandate that every health insurance plan offering any type of prescription drug benefit and/or outpatient service would have to cover contraceptive drugs and devices and outpatient services.
Voting to indefinitely postpone this intrusive, coercive legislation were Sens. Mark Quandahl (chairman), Gene Tyson, Mike Foley, Jim Jensen, Mick Mines and Pam Redfield. We commend them for their action. It was the right thing to do. Sens. LeRoy Loudon and Joel Johnson abstained on the vote.