Although the Legislature has adjourned the 2025 session, Senators are already hard at work crafting bills for January, setting up interim studies, and attending conferences and meetings throughout their districts. We need to keep in mind that any bill that was not passed into law or indefinitely postponed will carry over to the 2026, the second session in the biennium. That, combined with it being a shorter session, usually means fewer new bills are offered in the second session.

I introduced three interim study resolutions this session. The first is a study to follow up on an issue that Governor Pillen asked me to study related to ag data privacy. Farmer and ranchers have an expectation that their data is secure and controlled by them to the extent possible. Today, many components of ag operations use equipment with some type of data connection that stores the output. Tractors and other equipment can be controlled remotely as well. Although we are always susceptible to cyberattacks, our data can also be collected and sold through third parties. This includes collecting our inputs and outputs, as well as genetic and other data collected from livestock EID tags and other remote devices. The right to sell or otherwise use this data should be controlled by the producer to the extent possible. My goal is to use the interim study to better understand all of the nuances and details of the ag data processes so we can improve the bill I introduced last session and move it forward in 2026.

The second interim study deals with the ongoing study of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and the drug supply chain more generally. The Legislature has had legislation related to PBMs introduced for several years, and passed the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Licensure and Regulation Act in 2022. This year, I was pleased that I could work with my colleagues who introduced PBM legislation to bring all of the stakeholders together to implement other reasonable restrictions and protections that should improve the outlook for Nebraska pharmacies without unduly increasing drug benefit costs for insurers and, therefore, consumers. This interim study is designed to continue the discussion, including helping committee members to unwind the complicated drug supply chain. Many solutions are reserved for the federal level, but there may be more we can do in the state legislature to increase transparency and balance stakeholder interests.

Finally, the third interim study will examine factors affecting the rising cost of home insurance and explore ways to address premium increases and the availability of property insurance coverage. Access to affordable and workforce housing is a huge challenge facing most Nebraska communities. The cost of home ownership, which includes affordable insurance and property taxes, is a major barrier to accessing new and existing housing. Adequate insurance can also impact individuals’ ability to obtain financing, which can inhibit redevelopment or improvement of older or dilapidated homes. And, of course, increasing costs affect current homeowners as well.

One of the highest contributors to high property insurance is the claims resulting from roof losses. Wind and hail losses in Nebraska run higher than in any surrounding state. In addition to the high losses, many of these storms are widespread with many losses happening at once. When this happens, out-of-state companies often rush into an area and get assignments of losses from unsuspecting homeowners. Unfortunately, these assignments include giving them the right to sue the insurance company on your behalf, which they routinely do. In the end, they fix your roof, but they sue the insurer for losses that were never incurred. The insurance company ultimately settles the case, and the costs rise, resulting in higher premiums. Keep in mind that these are out-of-state or big-city companies as opposed to our local roofers, who will be here before the storm and will be here after to do any follow-up work and honor any warranties.

Additionally, the cost of reinsurance has skyrocketed as major storms around the country have caused massive losses during and after the pandemic. They continue to rebuild their reserves during this time as well. It is important to remember that your local agent is doing all they can to keep you insured at the best rate possible, but they have limited options today. I look forward to hearing from insurers, insurance agents, contractors, realtors, and others about the status of Nebraska’s property insurance system and consider ways we can improve this situation.

There is much to do this summer to prepare for the upcoming session. Keep sending any ideas you may have my way. I can be reached at 402-471-2729 or by emailing me at mjacobson@leg.ne.gov. It is a pleasure serving as your State Senator. I enjoy the challenge and will continue to do my best to serve the interests of District 42.

As our country celebrates 249 years of existence, one common question still exists: What is a fair amount for citizens to pay in taxes, and how should the tax burden be distributed? We all agree we’d like to pay less in taxes, but reducing individuals’ tax burdens while still funding essential services and making investments to grow our economy is not as simple as it sounds. Many people have their own ideas of how to reduce taxes, but getting 33 state Senators – or a majority of those in Congress – to agree is a tall task.

Before proposing solutions, it is beneficial to understand how the current system operates. In Nebraska, the State funds its operations primarily from a 5.5% state sales tax and income taxes. These funds are collected statewide and help pay for all government agencies, state-owned roads, aid to public education, and other programs deemed beneficial to the state. Some agencies also collect fees and penalties that are used for State expenses. All the state revenue is currently fully appropriated.

Counties rely on property taxes, fees, and inheritance taxes to fund their needs. Counties collect local property taxes and distribute the funds to the local taxing entities, including the counties themselves. This ensures local dollars go towards local services that benefit those paying the property taxes. County responsibilities include maintaining and building roads, overseeing county law enforcement and emergency responses, and managing the county court system. Each county has an elected board, either comprised of commissioners or supervisors. This board also serves as the Board of Equalization in each county.

Municipalities, including cities and villages of all sizes, are also governed by a locally elected board with local control. In addition to property taxes and fees, municipalities can also collect a local option sales tax for additional revenue. The local option sales tax must be approved by the local voters. In the case of North Platte, its local option sales tax revenues have grown significantly over the past few years, which has helped to lower its property tax ask. Shifting the cost of maintaining city services from property tax payers to consumers allows for a lower cost of living for locals and takes advantage of tourism and travelers visiting the city.

There are a number of other entities that have tax-collecting authority, from rural fire districts to ag societies, from natural resource districts to educational service units. Community colleges used to be included on that list, but the state recently took over 100% of community college funding at the state level. By far, local public schools account for the largest portion of property tax collections.

The biggest challenge we face as lawmakers is how to fairly distribute state aid to schools and, in turn, how to fairly put limits on school spending. It is clear that we have runaway spending in many school districts, but there is also a wide variety in the needs of those districts across the state. Some of the smallest schools actually have a sizeable tax base because of the rural nature of the district. Conversely, urban schools often have more students with special needs or extra educational needs, such as students for whom English is a second language. Rural districts tend to have fewer of these types of students, but that, in turn, requires a disproportionate use of extra resources for the special students they have.

Over the last several years, the Legislature, in partnership with Governor Pillen and then-Governor Ricketts, has made significant financial investments in local public education. These investments were designed to address the slow shift to more reliance on property taxes in the last several decades, caused by unfunded mandates, rising costs per pupil, and state aid that didn’t keep up with increased costs. Over time, the TEEOSA formula has also been modified to shift more state equalization aid to larger metro-area schools. Even with more direct funding to small schools and direct property tax credits, school property taxes continue to rise in most districts as enrollment changes, the mix of special needs students shifts, and overhead expenses increase.

The solution to lowering school spending is unlikely to be one-size-fits-all. For some districts, it might be sharing administration with a neighboring district or combining sports programs. For others, it might mean taking advantage of virtual learning. It could mean reducing long-term costs by performing deferred maintenance or upgrading school properties. It is vital that school districts pursue conservative spending policies if we want to reduce property taxes. It will also be critical for school districts to communicate with state officials about what restrictions are workable. I remain open to suggestions that can be a part of the solution to a long-term, sustainable tax scheme.

It is a privilege to represent you in the Nebraska Legislature, and I look forward to hearing from you regarding issues that are important to you. I can be reached at 402-471-2729 or by emailing me at mjacobson@leg.ne.gov.

I’m writing this week’s article from Madonna Rehabilitation Hospital in Lincoln as I recover my physical strength and stamina as part of recovery from a fall caused by medication side effects. I am progressing well and look forward to being back in the District soon. My recent experience has reminded me of the value of affordable, quality healthcare as a fundamental resource for our state, and especially rural communities. I have been fortunate throughout my journey to receive excellent care from the University of Nebraska Medical Center, Great Plains Health, and now Madonna. In addition to property tax relief, supporting rural healthcare and access to affordable insurance coverage are top priorities of mine.

This week, we received good news from the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that the state’s application resulting from LB1087 was accepted. As a reminder, LB1087 was passed by the Legislature in partnership with the Nebraska Hospital Association (NHA) and allowed for the collection of an assessment from hospitals that could be used as the state matching dollars to draw down more federal funds, which would then be redistributed to our hospitals. The application was filed on July 1, 2024, so benefits for Nebraska hospitals will be retroactive from that date. Nebraska hospitals should receive nearly $1 billion in benefits from the program. Big thank you to Governor Pillen, the NHA, and 44 of my colleagues who voted for the bill.

Growing rural Nebraska will depend upon keeping fundamental services available, which includes our hospitals, big and small.

I am mindful that our federal delegation has the tough job of cutting federal spending to close the budget deficit that has exploded over recent years. The future of the LB1087 program will depend on the results of the reconciliation bill in Congress. Nebraska has already felt the pressure of some of these cuts on its own budget, and I expect that the Legislature will be faced with more tough budget cuts this coming year. It will be critical for lawmakers and the administration to work together to prioritize how we spend the dollars we do have, and for our counterparts on the local level to hold down spending until more property tax relief can come at the state level.

It is important to remember that property values have risen faster than inflation; however, this does not automatically result in property tax increases. The ultimate tax will be determined after budgets are approved and tax requests are determined within the caps established by the Legislature in the 2024 special session. I expect mill levies to fall, and I hope property taxes will moderate.

Every tax cut must be offset with a corresponding spending cut. Anything else is simply a tax shift, where someone else picks up the tab for the other tax. The state budget is fully appropriated, so it would either take new revenue or decreases from another appropriation to fund new priorities. Tax shifts are not new, but they also don’t decrease the overall tax burden on Nebraskans. For example, over the last several decades, fewer dollars have been coming from the state to fund rural schools through TEEOSA, so the costs have been picked up by property tax payers. Now, the state is providing direct funding by offering $1,500 per student in foundation aid and has created a $1 billion education future fund to help with direct funding to schools, so there should be opportunities to reduce property tax askings. Conversely, the state is funding the continued step down of the state income tax, which means we are more dependent on other revenue sources, like sales taxes and fees, for state revenue.

Unless we expand the tax base, the state’s revenues will be limited to growth in the state’s economy that produces more state income and sales tax revenue. Attempts have been made to eliminate some sales tax exemptions on higher-end goods and services that don’t impact low-income earners and business inputs, but have fallen short of passage. Unfortunately, property taxes are often the first to be increased when revenues are short, simply because the state has fewer funds to offset local spending. This cannot continue. Less spending and growing more is the formula to greater prosperity.

I want you to know that I am remaining focused on how best to serve you and the issues important to you. I am grateful that we live in a time when technology makes it so easy to stay connected, and I am participating in as many calls and virtual meetings as possible between physical therapy. Please continue to reach out by phone at 402-471-2729 or by emailing me at mjacobson@leg.ne.gov.

I want to start this week’s article by letting you all know I’m recovering well and am looking forward to regaining more strength and stamina with the physical therapy staff at Madonna in Lincoln for the next few weeks. While there, I will keep in close touch with my legislative and Bank staff, as well as participating in calls and virtual meetings as my schedule allows.

Julie and I are tremendously grateful for all of the prayers and well-wishes; they have certainly been felt. We also appreciated Governor Pillen and First Lady Suzanne stopping by Great Plains Health for an in-person visit prior to taking in some of the NebraskaLand Days festivities. They are truly good, kind people.

Many of you will have started receiving your property tax valuations in the mail. Statewide, people can generally expect their valuations to have increased, often past the level of inflation. Valuations are based on the current market value as of January 1 of the calendar year. The valuations set the property tax base. Political subdivisions are also starting their budgeting process this time of year, and will work to finalize the budget in early- to mid-fall.

July 1, 2025, is the implementation date for LB34 (passed during last year’s special session), which set property tax revenue caps for cities and counties, so this will be the first year the caps are in place. This will limit what their property tax “ask” can be year over year, but doesn’t impact their ability to collect revenue from other sources, such as local option sales tax. Rest assured, local budgets will not be increasing at the same rate as your property valuations. Cities and counties are capped at the greater of 0% or inflation plus actual growth, plus certain allowances for public safety. I hope other non-capped political subdivisions will be conservative in their budgeting. With caps and careful budgeting, we can expect higher valuations to result in reductions in the mill levy; therefore, only a small growth in spending. This will mitigate the rate of property tax increases.

Long-term, the answer to the property tax crisis is less spending. There are a number of controllable expenses at the local level that lawmakers expect to be held down, and there are unfunded mandates that the state needs to work to address. The State continues to increase its contributions to property tax credits and public schools, including $1,500/student in foundation aid for unequalized school districts (those that wouldn’t otherwise receive state funding through TEEOSA). It has also recently begun funding community colleges with state dollars, rather than local property tax dollars.

If the State is going to undertake even more property tax relief, local political divisions must demonstrate an appetite to reduce spending. Many lawmakers are skeptical of creating new sources of revenue, such as new or increased sales taxes, without proof that local officials will reduce expenses. And that will have to include public schools, which make up the vast majority of your property tax asking. Some have likened the current system to putting water (property tax relief) in a bucket with a hole in the bottom (increased spending). I certainly understand their frustration.

Property tax relief continues to be a top priority for me and Governor Pillen’s administration. I look forward to seeing what the commission created by LB303 puts together over the interim. I will also be meeting separately with a group of fellow rural lawmakers over the summer to work on a property tax relief plan that focuses on rural Nebraska. No plan will solve the problem overnight, but I’m hopeful that local leaders will join with state lawmakers to put together a proposal that will make meaningful progress on reducing spending while maintaining quality services and education.

It is a privilege to represent you in the Nebraska Legislature, and I look forward to hearing from you regarding issues that are important to you. I can be reached at 402-471-2729 or by emailing me at mjacobson@leg.ne.gov.

The Legislature is officially between the first and second half of the 109th Legislature. We will meet for the second session of the 109th Legislature on the first Wednesday after the first Monday in January 2026. This will be the short 60-day session. As many of you know, I announced last week that I intend to run for a second four-year term. Sitting elected officials must file to be on the ballot in February of the election year, with the non-office holder filing deadline in March. 

I continue to get questions as to what the Legislature is doing to lower property taxes. My first answer is to talk to the local political subdivisions that actually assess and collect property taxes. They are in the best position to lower property taxes by cutting spending. Absent voluntary spending reductions, the best thing the state can do to help is add limits to additional property tax collections from year to year by limiting how much property taxes can increase at the local level. We made great progress in this area during the Special Session last summer. 

LB34 (2024) accomplished two goals. First, it limited how much revenue can increase from year to year beginning July 1, 2025. The limit was the greater of inflation or zero percent plus the percentage of real growth and growth in pubic safety needs. By imposing these limits, the practice of leaving the tax levy flat and letting huge valuation increases carry property taxes will no longer happen. Second, LB34 added a new property tax credit using state funds, which will go up at least 3% per year. 

So, keep in mind that just because your property valuations are going up by double digits, that does not mean your property taxes will be growing at that same rate. By limiting tax revenue growth, we can get a handle on the tax rate. 

Always remember that your individual property tax is derived by multiplying the property value times the levy. Historically, the Legislature has either attempted to limit the rate of growth in tax value or limit the levy. In reality, it is the actual tax collection that we want to limit. I believe we want our property values to rise, but we do not want the property tax to rise above inflation. I believe that artificially setting or capping property values is a bad path to go down. It is the spending that needs to remain in check, which we can cap by limiting available revenues. As a result, higher property values must result in lower levies, vastly lower. 

Cities also collect local option sales taxes, which can generate revenue to lower the city’s reliance on property taxes. When they can grow their sales tax collections, they can lower their property tax request. Conversely, counties collect inheritance taxes, in addition to fees on motor vehicle registration, marriage licenses, and other miscellaneous services. However, the local school districts continue to lead property tax collections because they receive federal and state aid, but have no other local funding sources. The state continues to raise districts’ aid each year, but the state’s revenue sources are limited as well. Many in the Legislature want to see caps on schools before we allocate or generate any additional funding. 

Very few schools have stable demographics. School population changes, number of special education students, teaching salaries, and administrative salary costs are generally based on years of service and education levels. I am glad that LB303 was passed by the legislature this year. It created a commission to consider solutions for lowering school spending and increasing efficiencies. It will be made up of all areas of school leadership, plus a few state Senators. In the end, the Legislature will make the final decision, but input from the schools themselves will help determine what solutions are palatable. 

It is a privilege to serve as your state Senator, and I look forward to hearing from you on issues that are top of mind for you. I may not have all the answers, but my staff and I will work hard to find solutions. I can be reached at 402-471-2729 or by emailing me at mjacobson@leg.ne.gov.

The Legislature officially adjourned Sine Die on Monday, June 2, 2025 (Day 89). It is not uncommon to adjourn early, but there’s a certain amount of risk to passing bills without the chance to override a veto. Every bill passed must be sent to the Governor’s office for his signature. If he chooses to veto a bill passed on the last day, he would do so without any opportunity for the Legislature to override the veto. This year, the Legislature was assured by the Governor that he would not veto any bills scheduled to be heard on Day 89. As a result, we were able to adjourn one day early.

I have been asked many times: How did the session go? Did you make progress on property tax reductions? The session was productive, as measured by the number of bills signed into law, but progress on property tax relief was limited. With the large incoming Freshman class, there were extremes on both sides. The new conservatives had several good ideas regarding property tax relief, but their ideas need some time to develop. The more progressive members of the class were focused on spending bills. If passed, one new Senator’s bills alone would have amounted to over $1 billion in new spending. That is the greatest problem in the Legislature: too many want to spend, rather than give dollars back to taxpayers.

As a refresher, the state’s revenue sources are primarily limited to the 5.5% state portion of sales tax, state income tax, and fees. The state also receives federal dollars, particularly for public welfare programs like Medicaid. The state has no property taxing authority. The budget just passed for the two-year biennium includes total state spending of approximately $11 billion and had to make up for some significant reductions in federal funds. Nearly 25% of this total spending goes to funding K-12 public education. The projected growth in General Fund spending will be limited to 2.8%. So, we have indeed held spending down, but were unable to increase revenue to the extent that significant dollars could be added to the property tax relief fund.

At the local level, the rest of the funding for most public schools comes from property taxes. Cities and counties receive property tax revenue, along with other political subdivisions. Counties also receive funding from inheritance taxes and fees, while cities receive funding from fees and local option sales taxes.

Just as grain farmers are forced to find cost savings and new revenue sources, because they have no choice, we must do the same. The revenues are simply not there. If property taxes are going to go down, we need to spend less, expand our tax base, or increase fees and taxes (either through rates or increasing the number of taxable items/services). If we want to avoid fee and tax increases, political subdivisions must cut spending, not just slow spending. This growth in spending is not sustainable. At the same time, the Legislature should focus on providing state funding for unfunded mandates, exploring mechanisms to limit spending, and identifying inefficiencies. Part of that also includes supporting programs that actually make a difference in growing the economy, and eliminating those that don’t work.

I remain open to listening to anyone who has a better solution, but tag lines like “we need to change our tax system” or “our tax system is broken” are not enough. Part of a viable plan is not just the concept, but a solution that 33 Senators can agree to. That requires a careful balance of interests between a number of groups, including conservatives, progressives, urban, and rural. There is a limited amount of funds available, so ideas for how to raise revenue or cut spending are welcome.

It is a privilege to represent you in the Nebraska Legislature, and I look forward to hearing from you regarding issues that are important to you. I can be reached at 402-471-2729 or by emailing me at mjacobson@leg.ne.gov.

We have reached Day 89, and Speaker Arch announced it will be the last day of session. On Day 89, we will deal with housekeeping items and wrap up four Final Reading bills that do not have a veto risk from the Governor. Constitutionally, a bill that passes Select File must lay over for at least one session day prior to getting scheduled for Final Reading. The Governor then has five days from receiving a bill passed by the Legislature to veto the bill. For that reason, there are only four bills scheduled for final consideration on the last day of the session, plus any veto overrides needed for bills passed in the prior week.

I will spend the weeks going forward recapping some of the specific bills passed this session, but for now, I want to give you my take on how the session went. Compared to the 2023 session, it went very well, but it became clear many of the progressives in the body had decided to resist any tax shifts and force the conservatives to be seen as tax and fee raisers. The fact remains that there are limited natural revenue increases that can be captured in any one year. Additionally, the federal government has made significant cuts in aid to states this year. As a result, the Governor asked the Appropriations Committee to sweep any unnecessary funds in agency cash accounts to meet our spending obligations, including tax relief commitments.

After passing the budget, the Legislature heard LB169, which included much of LB170. The combined bill would have raised “sin” taxes on cigarettes to match Iowa and doubled the vape products tax. It also would have removed the existing sales tax exemption on several services, including high-end services such as chartered jet flights, pool cleaning, and landscaping. The measure would have also taxed “soda” (taxed today if they are fountain drinks) and “candy.” The ultimate use for the approximate $100 million in annual new revenue would have been property tax relief.

Unfortunately, this bill did not pass due to a few conservatives and most progressives in the body.

Some were opposed because they called it a tax shift (they are exactly right), but we have been shifting to a higher reliance on property taxes for many years. If the state underfunds education, property taxes go up.

If we truly want property tax relief, we need to spend less at all levels of government. If local property tax budgets are exceeding the rate of inflation, taxes will go up. If we attempt to freeze property valuations, mill levies increase. In the end, controlling spending is the best fix.

Education of K-12 students is a Constitutional responsibility of the state. Over the years, attempts to raise more sales tax revenue to fund education have met with resistance from urban schools, which like the current system. Most urban schools receive TEEOSA funding and have costs per pupil around $10,000 per student. Many small schools have funding costs closer to $30,000 to $45,000 per student. This is caused by lower student numbers with limited opportunities to find other funding sources. Consolidation could be one solution, but a significant disparity in school mill levies limits voluntary consolidation. That is what limits greater progress in this area.

Property taxes remain a significant problem because it is hard to get the buy-in of all the parties involved. Competing interests and priorities are echoed in the Legislature, which makes it challenging to find consensus that is radical enough to make a real difference.

It has been a pleasure serving as your State Senator during the 2025 Legislative Session. I have enjoyed the challenge and will continue to do my best to serve the interests of District 42.

As we head into the interim, please continue to reach out regarding issues that are important to you. I can be reached at 402-471-2729 or by emailing me at mjacobson@leg.ne.gov.

This week will be the last full week of the 109th Legislature’s First Session. We begin the week on Tuesday, May 27, which is Legislative Day 85 of the 90-day session. We have been spending four days a week in session, but we have been going well into the evening three days a week. It takes its toll, especially when bills are being filibustered. The schedule for Tuesday is relatively short since two bills will likely be filibustered for four hours each. The Speaker then has four days left to hear the remaining 59 bills on Final Reading and the 19 bills on Select File. Many are priority bills, and several are controversial.

This past week included the surprise scheduling of LB646, the brand bill. This bill was introduced on January 22. I was one of the original co-sponsors, hoping that the bill could be improved to provide fee reductions for registered feed lots (RFLs) in the brand area while preserving the integrity of the inspection process. Unfortunately, the bill took on a life of its own, so I removed my name on March 25. At that point, I began working with Senator Storer to oppose the bill unless meaningful changes were made to protect the brand.

The Governor was getting pressure from all sides, but in the end, his role was to serve as a facilitator. A meeting where all interested parties could have their representatives participate was held at the Governor’s residence to talk through their issues and hope to get a resolution. Although it was one of the more productive meetings I have been a part of, it still did not resolve all the issues. Given the limited remaining days in this legislative session, and the fact that no resolution had been agreed to, many thought the bill would not be back this session. To everyone’s surprise, the bill was scheduled for Select File debate this past Wednesday.

Sen. Storer and I were prepared to filibuster the bill so 33 votes would be needed to advance the bill. But since the bill was last on the agenda, we had all day to negotiate a deal to resolve the issues. In the end, the amendment I filed completely replaced the original bill and all the amendments with the proposed changes. The amendment did not make any changes to the current inspection process and only made changes to the fee structure.

As amended, the bill does the following:

Authorizes the Brand Committee to raise inspection fees from $1.10 per head to $1.50 per head; removes dairies from the inspection process; and lowers the annual capacity fee for RFLs from $1.00 per head to $0.50 per head.

In the end, the RFLs get reduced fees, and the cow/calf producers maintain the inspection process the way it is today. Not everyone is happy, but this seemed to be the right compromise. Remember, 2/3 of the state is located within the brand inspection area, but only 1/3 of the state Senators represent that same area. As a result, many Senators have no dog in this fight.

In closing, I want to take the opportunity to say THANK YOU to all Veterans and express my deepest gratitude to those who died serving our country. Memorial Day is the one federal holiday to honor those who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces! Let’s all remember the reason we celebrate this weekend.

It is a privilege to represent you in the Nebraska Legislature, and I look forward to hearing from you regarding issues that are important to you. I can be reached at 402-471-2729 or by emailing me at mjacobson@leg.ne.gov.

Last Thursday was Day 80. We passed the budget and will now focus on any remaining priority bills that are in various stages of passage.

The budget was very challenging to balance this year because we continued to deal with a moving target. When the special session ended last summer, the budget was balanced with nearly $70 million to spare. Then, the Nebraska Economic Forecasting Advisory Board met in October and reduced the forecast, taking the budget to nearly a $350 million deficit. Much of the deficit was caused by the federal government reducing the state’s FMAP (Medicaid) funding by approximately the same amount. The Forecast Board met again in April and reduced the revenue forecast by an additional $195 million. This cut ultimately caused the final budget to rely on an approximately $135 million transfer from the state’s Cash Reserve Fund (rainy day fund) in addition to transfers from other cash funds. In the end, we avoided raising taxes, did not cut essential services, and held spending increases to 0.9% over the budget period.

Although there was much debate on the floor regarding cash fund transfers, I do agree with the concept of removing excess funds from most cash funds that were funded by General Fund dollars and not already committed to projects. However, cash funds generated by specific taxes or fees outside the General Fund need to be carefully considered. One of those funds was the Rural Workforce Housing Fund, which had already been committed to specific projects, including a North Platte project. I intend to work with Senator Hallstrom to try to restore as much of those funds as possible from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to preserve the funds that were swept.

I do, however, agree that uncommitted funds lying around generally get used by lawmakers to fund other bills they sponsor that don’t have a funding source. One example was the successful attempt by Senator Justin Wayne two years ago to reappropriate the investment earnings from the Perkins County Canal project to fund a North Omaha project. We clawed back those funds this year to balance the budget and directed future investment earnings from cash funds to the General Fund.

The agenda for Monday includes LB170, introduced by Senator Brandt; the original bill deals with making pop and candy subject to sales tax. However, several amendments are proposed. One would remove candy from the list, but add many of the other items such as pet grooming, charted flights, dry cleaning, dating services, interior design, lobbying services, limousine services, telemarketing services, Teleflora services, golf and dance lessons, sightseeing services, swimming pool services, travel agency services, massage services, tattoo or body modifications (except for medical reasons), skin care services, weight loss services, as well as pop and energy drinks. The bill would also raise the cigarette tax from $0.64 per pack to $1.36 per pack, which would make our tax equal to Iowa’s. If passed as proposed, the cigarette tax increase would generate $42 million per year.

An amendment added to the bill includes Senator Hughes’ LB712, which creates a uniform 40% tax on electronic nicotine delivered systems or vapes. This part of the bill would generate an additional $15 million per year.

Senator Wordekemper also included his bill, LB212, which closes a loophole to requires out-of-state online sellers of cigars to pay a 20% excise tax on cigars. Today, only in-state sellers are required to collect taxes, making them less competitive with out-of-state online sellers.

The total package could generate $100 million per year, which could be used to further reduce property taxes.

It will be an interesting debate since it will be hard to make the argument that many of these taxes impact lower-income earners and are regressive. They also avoid taxing business inputs.

It is a privilege to represent you in the Nebraska Legislature, and I look forward to hearing from you regarding issues that are important to you. I can be reached at 402-471-2729 or by emailing me at mjacobson@leg.ne.gov.

This week will be busy as we begin the second round of debate on LB261 (mainline budget) and LB264 (cash fund transfers). Both bills passed the first round of debate last week, but the budget remains out of balance due to the latest report from the Nebraska State Economic Forecasting Board. At its April meeting, the Forecasting Board reduced the state budget forecast by an additional $190 million for the upcoming biennium.

In the second round of budget debates, we will consider a “white copy” amendment (AM1320) that essentially replaces LB261 with a proposal that includes additional revenue, spending cuts, and cash fund transfers. LB264 will also be replaced by a “white copy” amendment (AM1300). I expect to see many other amendments introduced, especially to AM1320, with alternative ideas for balancing the budget.

This week’s debate will make it clear which state Senators believe in less spending to balance our budget and how committed Senators are to preserving existing tax cuts, both to income and property taxes.

I have made my thoughts on the tax cuts well known. I believe that the income tax cuts need to remain in place if we want to make Nebraska attractive for new businesses to locate here and to keep existing large income taxpayers from leaving Nebraska. Unless you have been living under a rock, it is widely known that our property taxes are out of control and that preserving the property tax credit funds is important to taking some of the cost of K-12 education off the backs of property taxpayers.

I am open to repealing some sales tax exemptions on high-end goods that do not negatively impact low-income individuals and are not business inputs. Examples would be: pool cleaning, chartered jet travel, residential landscaping, and other items along these lines. I am also open to taxing pop and candy, as long as the proceeds are used to balance the budget and provide tax relief. I will remain opposed to more spending that does not directly invest in programs that incentivize more affordable housing and tourism, or provide a proven positive return on investment.

I will also remain opposed to tapping the principal allocated to the Perkins County Canal project. That project is well into the design phase and must be completed if we want to preserve Nebraska’s water rights on the South Platte River.

One thing I have learned during my time in the Legislature is that any funds that can be spent will be spent. That is why sweeping excess cash funds is necessary to both balance the budget and keep needless spending from occurring. I do, however, have concerns that some of the cash funds in the proposed budget took dollars that were already committed to projects underway. I will be working to restore those funds during this process.

It is important to keep in mind that the Appropriations Committee’s budget recommendations tried to take funds that evenly impact all areas of the state, and tried not to negatively impact programs. Because of that, I supported the first-round bills in their original form (as did my conservative colleagues), because if one Senator removed something, there would have been a tidal wave of items proposed to be removed. There is much work occurring behind the scenes to get it right.

In the end, I expect we will need to transfer up to $150 million from the state’s Cash Reserve Fund (rainy day fund) to balance the budget and preserve the tax cuts. This would still leave a healthy balance of over $650 million in the fund. This is well above the average balance and still leaves room for additional transfers in future years if we need it.

It will be an interesting week at the Legislature.

It is a privilege to serve as your State Senator, and I will continue to give my full effort to make a positive difference for the District and the State. You can reach me at mjacobson@leg.ne.gov or 402-471-2729.