CO2 sequestration will soon become a major problem for land owners in Nebraska. When the State Legislature passed LB 650 on Final Reading back in 2021, I was the only State Senator who voted against the bill. Those State Senators who voted for the bill will soon begin regretting their decision to have voted for the bill. So, today I would like to tell you about another reason why LB 650 was such a bad idea and why it will soon be haunting State Senators as well as land owners all across our state.

The companies who want to build CO2 sequestration pipelines in Nebraska, such as Tallgrass, Summit, and others, have little regard for the rights of landowners and will use the law to their advantage to build their CO2 pipelines against the wishes of land owners in Nebraska. In short, LB 650 allows CO2 sequestration companies to infringe on the rights of landowners. Let me explain.

Nebraska State Statute 76-725 specifically states that eminent domain can only be used by the State of Nebraska to acquire lands “necessary for any state use.” Our forefathers in Nebraska understood that private ownership of property was a basic and sacred right of the people, and that private lands should never be seized by corporations or private businesses for the purposes of creating wealth.

The lobbyists and lawyers who convinced former Nebraska State Senator, Mike Flood, to introduce LB 650 understood this full well. So, when LB 650 was written, it was written in such a way as to make CO2 sequestration a matter of the “public interest,” but we should ask: Is the underground storage of carbon dioxide really a matter of the public interest?

Language matters. LB 650 begins with these words, “The Legislature finds, recognizes, and declares, that it is in the public interest to promote the geologic storage of carbon dioxide. Doing so will benefit the state and the global environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and will help ensure the viability of the state’s energy and power industries, to the economic benefit of Nebraska and its citizens.” (There is no scientific proof that CO2 sequestration will do any of this!) This language is important, though, because it opens the door for the use of eminent domain by CO2 sequestration companies.

CO2 sequestration companies are for-profit businesses who plan to make billions of dollars through federal government subsidies and tax credits. While there is currently only about 5,000 miles of CO2 pipelines in the United States, CO2 companies are projected to build a total of 100,000 miles of CO2 pipelines across the United States, most of which will cut directly through agricultural lands. The Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act is paying for it all and is set to fund the building of these pipelines with billions of dollars of taxpayer monies.

The building of CO2 pipelines would never succeed in a purely free-market economy. The entire industry is dependent upon these federally funded taxpayer dollars. Because the industry is entirely dependent upon these federal subsidies and tax credits, it raises the question of what would happen once the federal spigot gets turned off. There is good reason to believe that both Congress and the Trump Administration may act to put an end to the program. Once that happens, who will maintain the CO2 pipelines which have already been built?

62 accidents have already been reported with CO2 pipelines. When CO2 pipelines explode, they release powerful and toxic amounts of carbon dioxide, which have already been known to kill some Americans. Consequently, without some kind of private funding, the maintenance on these CO2 sequestration pipelines could potentially become an unfunded mandate imposed on the American people for decades.

Folks in Nebraska need to get involved with this issue now. Citizens need to familiarize themselves with the zoning laws of their county, attend county board meetings, and share their concerns about CO2 pipelines with their elected officials. Likewise, citizens need to be made aware of the effects that CO2 pipelines will have on their community and elected officials need to respect the concerns of the people who elected them into office.

The election of 2024 will go down in history as one of the worst abuses of rhetoric ever used in American political history. As bad as they were, the abuses of rhetoric were not limited to political candidates or pundits in the media; instead, they found their way into some of our most sacred government institutions. For example, following the presidential election on November 5 someone working for the United States Selective Service posted on the agency’s online X account a message suggesting the United States was now turning into 1936 Nazi Germany. The FBI is investigating the post. Rhetoric of this kind is not only false, but it is inflammatory, unprofessional, divisive, and morally wrong.

When I reflect on what Americans should take away from the election of 2024, what comes to my mind first of all is that American’s are not stupid and they do not like to be told what they must believe. The election of 2024 was marred by so many lies, half-truths, and personal attacks that it forced voters to walk away from all of the meaningless rhetoric and to think for themselves, and they did just that. American voters no longer listened to or cared when political candidates were cast as a racist hate-mongering bigots, as Hitler-like dictators, or even as convicted felons. These kinds of personal attacks no longer work in American politics.

What the election of 2024 so aptly demonstrated is that the American people are done with identity politics. Gone are the days when American voters will vote for or against a person on the basis of who they are. Voters don’t care about skin color or sex, nor do they care about what their favorite actor, television personality, or musician has to say about political candidates. Labels no longer matter. The election of 2024 effectively liberated the American people from the stranglehold of identity politics that the mainstream media has imposed upon them for the past 50 years.

The election of 2024 was won on the basis of policy rather than personal identity or meaningless rhetoric. In the final analysis, the majority of American voters decided who to vote for based upon each candidate’s policy platform. This time around, the wild passions of the heart had to yield to the facts of reality and give way to those time-tested and common-sense solutions which work best for restoring prosperity, reducing inflation, curbing out-of-control crime, and preventing World War III. In short, the presidential election of 2024 was won because one candidate stood out as better able to articulate good common-sense solutions to the kinds of problems that Americans want fixed.

The situation was no different here in Nebraska, especially in regards to the Unicameral Legislature. Voters in Nebraska voted to retain a filibuster proof-majority for Republicans in the supposedly non-partisan State Legislature. Overall, voters in Nebraska refused to listen to the meaningless campaign rhetoric which flooded their mailboxes, newspapers, television sets, radios, and the Internet, and chose instead to vote for State Senators who would best grow our state’s economy, keep our people safe, protect our constitutional rights, and uphold our traditional values.

Nebraska was not immune to controversy this year. For example, voters passed ballot measures to legalize medical marijuana, to repeal school choice, and to protect women and children. Regardless of where you might stand on such controversial issues, my hope and my prayer is that we can all learn to discuss and debate these kinds of policy matters in respectful ways without resorting the kinds of meaningless rhetoric and personal attacks which marred this year’s election. So, when you gather with family and friends this year for Thanksgiving dinner, remember that the only identification that really matters is that the person you are conversing with at the dinner table is a human being created in the image of God.

CO2, otherwise known as carbon dioxide, is good for the earth. Climate change fanatics would have you believe that CO2 is somehow bad for our planet, but it is not. “Carbon pollution” was a term made up by environmental extremists, who have a political agenda to end CO2 emissions caused by combustion engines and the burning of carbon-based fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Not only is carbon dioxide good for us, it is also in short supply.

In 2021, when the Nebraska State Legislature voted to pass LB650, the Nebraska Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide Act, I was the only State Senator in the Unicameral Legislature who voted against the bill on Final Reading. I voted against the bill because it defied common-sense. Not only is it foolish to try to store carbon dioxide underground, we already knew at that time that plants need carbon dioxide to grow.

Carbon dioxide cannot be effectively stored underground. Since the passage of LB650 in 2021, we have learned a lot about storing CO2 underground. According to Steve Goreham, the author of Green Breakdown, CO2 always leaks back into the atmosphere, and no carbon storage facility in operation has ever been able to capture enough CO2 to make a difference in managing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. So, trying to store CO2 underground amounts to an exercise in futility.

Plants need carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is plant food. This is a basic fact of biology. Moreover, CO2 released from combustion engines and power plants has resulted in the greening of our planet over time. What the environmental extremists won’t ever tell you is that in 2016 a very important paper was published by 32 authors from 24 different institutions in eight countries, which analyzed satellite data from around the world and concluded that global green vegetation had increased by 14 percent over the course of the previous 30 years. A more recent study shows that 55 percent of the global land mass is now experiencing an “accelerated rate” of vegetation growth while only 7.3 percent of the earth’s global land mass is in decline or “browning.”

What all of this accelerated vegetation growth means is that the earth needs more CO2, not less. Contrary to popular opinion nowadays, the earth needs more carbon dioxide, but don’t take this from me; instead, listen to Dr. Roy Spenser, a former senior scientist with NASA, who said, “Though CO2 is necessary for life on Earth to exist, there is precious little of it in Earth’s atmosphere.” Because Nebraska is largely an agricultural state, the corn, soybeans, and wheat that we grow in our state must compete for that “precious little” amount of carbon dioxide which remains in the atmosphere.

So, what about global warming? Won’t releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere cause global warming? Actually, just the opposite is true. It turns out that increases in vegetation growth on the earth have a cooling effect, rather than a warming effect. Another study released in February 2020 shows that the greening of the earth is now expected to offset 17 years of carbon emissions by the year 2100. That fact is now expected to put the earth’s carbon levels below the target set by the Paris Agreement.

The State of Wyoming is now getting out of the carbon sequestration business. Project Bison, a massive Wyoming carbon sequestration project slated to begin in 2025, was recently halted in that state. The primary reason for pulling the plug on the project was the EPA’s 1,020 page set of rules for governing power plants and the sequestration of carbon dioxide. Rather than making use of common-sense, the EPA, which is politically driven by the Biden Administration’s Green New Deal, is inadvertently regulating states right out of the business of carbon sequestration.

I share these things with you today in order to shed the light of truth on a political agenda, which actually has no good grounding in science nor in common-sense. Plants need carbon dioxide to grow just as humans and animals need oxygen to breathe. Denying trees and plants of their most essential life-giving chemical element is just a very bad idea, especially for Nebraska.

One of the measures that will appear on the November 5 ballot is a referendum to repeal LB1402, otherwise known as Nebraska’s school choice bill. A vote to repeal on Measure 435 would effectively end the school choice program started by LB1402. Because all families must pay property taxes to their local public school district, I believe parents should be given the opportunity to choose where to send their children to school. Therefore, I support voting to retain Measure 435.

The education lobby has been hammering the airwaves and the Internet with commercials that are designed to garner support to repeal the new school choice law in Nebraska, but these advertisements are very misleading. Therefore, I would like to begin by exposing the three most misleading statements that are being spread about Nebraska’s school choice law.

The organization Support Our Schools Nebraska is currently running advertisements which say that LB1402 “shifts money from public schools to private schools” and that monies appropriated to pay for private schools “could force cuts to public schools to pay for it.” These statements simply are not true. These statements are false because public school districts are funded by local property tax dollars, not through the State’s General Fund. Property taxes are paid to the county, not to the State. In order for these statements to be true, the primary source of funding for public school districts would have to be the same as the source of funding for educational scholarships, and they are not the same. To the contrary, LB1402 appropriates $10 million per year from the State’s General Fund to the State Treasurer for the purpose of providing educational scholarships to students attending private schools. As long as public schools continue to receive their funding locally, and not from the State, there is no direct connection between funding for public schools and funding for educational scholarships.

Support Our Schools Nebraska also misleads the public by insinuating that LB1402 provides no oversight over monies paid to private schools. The advertisement says, “The voucher bill spends $100 million on private schools over ten years with no accountability or oversight of our tax dollars.” That statement is false because LB1402 does not spend any money on private schools; instead, the money is given to students in the form of scholarship grants. In other words, the program funds students rather than schools, which is the way it ought to be.

Finally, Support Our Schools Nebraska makes use of fear mongering tactics in order to scare voters into voting to repeal Measure 435. For example, Support Our Schools Nebraska is currently running an advertisement which says that Nebraska’s school choice program will cause Nebraska’s public schools to have “larger class sizes, fewer resources, less teacher pay, and higher property taxes.” Support Our Schools Nebraska ties their argument once again to how the school choice program receives its funding. The fact of the matter is that Support Our Schools Nebraska cannot validate any of their disastrous predictions about public education in Nebraska without first admitting that there is no connection whatsoever between how the school choice program is funded versus how public schools are funded. There is no way for their disastrous predictions to come true because the school choice program receives its money from the State and never intrudes on local funding for the public schools.

As you can see, the organization Support Our Schools Nebraska has not dealt forthrightly with voters concerning Measure 435. Educators love to brag about how well public education is doing in Nebraska. For example, you may have heard recently about how Nebraska’s students have out-performed their peers in other states on the ACT exam. While that statement is technically true, Nebraska’s ACT scores have been consistently falling over the years. For instance, when I first became a Nebraska State Senator eight years ago, the average ACT score in Nebraska was 21.5. This year’s average was only 19.1! So, rather than taking money away from students who want to attend a private school and better their education, shouldn’t we be holding our public schools accountable for failing Nebraska’s students? Nebraska needs school choice. On November 5, please vote to retain Measure 435.

Two ballot measures will appear on the November 5 ballot which concern the subject of abortion. Initiative 439 is known as the “Right to Abortion Initiative,” and would amend the Nebraska State Constitution, establishing abortion as a right up to the point of “fetal viability”. On the other side of the abortion issue is Initiative 434, also known as the “Protect Women and Children Initiative.” Initiative 434 would amend the Nebraska State Constitution to protect unborn children from abortions after the first trimester of pregnancy, except in cases of medical emergencies, rape and incest. Initiative 434 closely mirrors what State Senators did in 2023 when they passed LB574, which I voted for and continue to support.

Earlier this year a third ballot measure failed to get enough signatures to be placed on the November 5 ballot. That ballot initiative would have amended the Nebraska State Constitution to define a preborn child as a person at each stage of development within the womb; thus, making all abortions illegal. While I agree in principle that an unborn child is a person and that abortion is not a God-given right, I don’t believe the moral pulse of Nebraska is ready to pass such sweeping legislation. The fact that the ballot initiative failed to get enough signatures to appear on the November 5 ballot validates this point.

Overall Nebraska continues to be a Pro-Life state, and that is why we need to pass Initiative 434, the Protect Women and Children Initiative, and put some much-needed limitations on abortions. The language of Initiative 434 has been so carefully worded so as not to prevent the Legislature from passing further restrictions on abortions in the future, but allowing Initiative 439 to pass most certainly would! Because the language of Initiative 439 is so strong and would amend the Nebraska State Constitution by making abortion a fundamental right, it would make it nearly impossible for State Senators in the future to ever put restrictions of any kind on abortions.

This is important when you stop and consider the statistical facts about abortions. For example, 86 percent of all abortions are performed because the unborn child was considered to be an inconvenience. Inconvenience is simply a poor and inexcusable reason to take the life of an innocent child. Moreover, abortions of babies that are conceived in rape represent less than half of one percent, while abortions performed because of incest represent 1/100th of one percent of all abortions. Nationally, almost 900,000 abortions are performed each and every year, so putting the State Legislature in a position where State Senators can no longer debate these issues or consider putting any kind of restrictions whatsoever on abortions is just bad policy and runs counter to common-sense.

Initiative 434, the Protect Women and Children Initiative, is a good fit for Nebraska. While anti-abortion absolutists will continue to complain that Initiative 434 does not prohibit abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy, it would forbid abortions after the 12th week of pregnancy and prevent abortion from becoming a basic right in Nebraska. While the abortion rights activists will continue to complain that Initiative 434 takes away a woman’s and her physician’s decision-making ability in deciding to end a pregnancy, it would allow for a woman and her doctor to make that decision during the first trimester of pregnancy and it would permit State Senators to continue to debate these issues in the Unicameral Legislature in the future. Therefore, Initiative 434 represents the best common-sense solution for Nebraska as well as the best measure to vote for on this year’s ballot. I sincerely hope you will consider voting for Initiative 434 and against Initiative 439.

Back in January I introduced LB 1169, which was a bill to turn the Nebraska State Historical Society into a state code agency. The Nebraska State Historical Society had drifted far away from its original purpose and was engaging in practices which lacked accountability, especially in regards to the institution’s finances. Turning them into a state code agency allowed the Governor to appoint the director and greatly increased their level of accountability.

I made LB 1169 my personal priority bill this year and it passed in the Legislature. After the Governor signed the bill into law on April 16, 2024, the search began for a new executive interim director to run the agency. The natural and obvious choice for the position was Cindy Drake. Drake was the former librarian for the Nebraska State Historical Society, who had been unjustly fired from her position after serving the institution for 45 years. Gov. Pillen appointed Drake to the position on July 24, saying that she was the right person to fill the role.

Cindy Drake has already done a remarkable job of cleaning up the agency in the two short months that she has served as the executive interim director. Besides changing the name of the agency back to its original name (the name had been changed to History Nebraska), Drake has made several other positive changes to the agency and today I would like to highlight what some of those changes are.

First, Drake has been working closely with the Nebraska Department of Administrative Services and the Budget Office to restore financial accountability to the Nebraska State Historical Society. Drake is greatly improving the efficiency and accountability of the agency’s use of taxpayer’s dollars. For example, the agency is now relying upon its own staff to prepare the history of Nebraska instead of using out-of-state consulting firms to do the work. In short, those employed by the agency are now doing what they were originally hired to do.

Drake is leading the agency to restore its main exhibits in the Nebraska History Museum, which is located in Lincoln. These exhibits tell the comprehensive history of Nebraska from ancient times up to the 20th Century, and include important historical sites in Western Nebraska such as Fort Robinson and Chimney Rock. One of Drake’s goals is to create more interaction between the agency and local residents to better tell the story and to better promote the history of these important historical sites.

Drake has been leading the Nebraska State Historical Society to renew its partnership with the Nebraska State Historical Society Foundation, which has been in existence for the past 82 years. In 2023 the former director of History Nebraska, Trevor Jones, had been charged with felony theft by deception for transferring $269,926 to the History Nebraska Foundation, a separate foundation which he had helped to create. Under Drake’s leadership the Nebraska State Historical Society will work in tandem with the Nebraska State Historical Society Foundation to better fund and work on mutual historical activities which will better serve residents throughout the whole State of Nebraska.

Finally, Drake has restored the visiting hours for the library. The library is the home for the Archives Research Room, which houses the largest collection of Nebraska historical research materials. Previously, the library had been open to the public only one day each week. Now, the library, which is located at 1500 R Street in Lincoln, will be open weekdays from 9:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m., except on Tuesdays.

As you can see, there are many positive changes that are now occurring at the Nebraska State Historical Society. These improvements are happening because of LB 1169. Cindy Drake is doing an excellent job restoring accountability, integrity, and faith in our state’s most important institution for preserving our heritage and history.

Last week, Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh of Omaha, sent a letter to Sen. Ray Aguilar, chair of the Legislature’s Executive Board, asking State Senators to rethink the legality and constitutionality of LB574, otherwise known as the “Let Them Grow Act”. LB574 put restrictions on physicians administering gender altering drugs and procedures on individuals under the age of 19. LB574 narrowly passed in the Legislature, and Sen. Cavanaugh had filibustered every bill leading up to the final vote on LB574 in order to stall its passage.

Sen. Cavanaugh’s letter to the Executive Board is designed to press the issue of how many sexes actually exist and to force the State Legislature to grapple with the issue of legalizing gender rights. For example, she cited the Civil Rights Act of 1964, appealed to the Bill of Rights contained in the Nebraska State Constitution, especially Article I, Section 3 which protects any person from being deprived of their right to liberty, and the Declaration of Independence which guarantees to every citizen the right to pursue happiness.

One of the fundamental problems with Sen. Cavanaugh’s mission to protect gender rights is that it is based upon very recent and flimsy science. While it is not my intention today to argue for the science of a two sex only human anatomy, it is my intention to challenge Sen. Cavanaugh’s progressive scientific worldview. For example, earlier this summer, the American College of Pediatricians released a declaration which calls upon those in medical profession to “follow the science” and to “immediately stop the promotion of social affirmation, puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for children and adolescents who experience distress over their biological sex.” Their statement is important because it shows that there simply is no consensus in the medical field regarding these kinds of treatments for children.

Medical science sometimes advances faster than ethics. As Dr. Ian Malcom once said about the scientists who were creating dinosaurs in the movie Jurassic Park, they “…were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Dr. Malcom’s word of caution rings just as true for humans as it is for dinosaurs. Performing gender altering procedures on minors is just as much a moral decision as it is a scientific one.

In her letter to the Executive Board, Sen. Cavanaugh referred to these gender altering procedures as “necessary healthcare” without any qualification. To be sure, gender altering procedures are not necessary for sustaining life, and non-life-threatening healthcare procedures have never been considered a fundamental human right in American jurisprudence. At best, gender altering procedures would fall under the category of elective procedures, and elective procedures do not qualify as basic rights. If elective procedures were to constitute a necessary healthcare right, then what would that imply about such things as breast augmentations, liposuction, and nose jobs for underage straight individuals?

The fact of the matter is that many laws are created and are enforced which restrict what people can do to their own bodies. For example, the State of Nebraska has laws on the books which prohibit suicide, drunk driving, and public nudity, just to name a few. We prohibit such activities despite the fact that the argument is sometimes made on a purely personal level that suicide, drunk driving, and public nudity might contribute to an individual’s personal pursuit of happiness. We prohibit these kinds of activities because they can potentially do irreparable harm to the individual and that they transgress what is good for society as a whole.

So, I submit that making gender altering procedures available to minors is not good for Nebraska. Legalizing gender altering procedures for minors is immoral because minors are not yet mature enough to make these kinds of irreparable, life-changing decisions for themselves and that allowing minors to make these kinds of irreversible decisions transgresses what is good for society as a whole.

Last Thursday an Interim Study was conducted at the Capitol in Lincoln on LR357. According to Sen. Rick Holdcroft of Bellevue, the sponsor of the legislation, the purpose of the study was “to determine to what extent, if any, there is a necessity to bolster election security in the State of Nebraska.” To be sure, Nebraskans need to have confidence that their elections are secure and that the vote counting process accurately reflects the will of the people.

The two recent assassination attempts on the life of former president, Donald J. Trump, have settled the question once and for all as to whether individuals exist who are trying to interfere in our elections. Taking the life of a presidential candidate represents the most extreme form of election interference, and anyone who is so brazen to overtly attempt the assassination of the former president of the United States certainly does not lack the audacity to try to interfere covertly with the results of an election or to tamper with our vote counting machines.

The Interim Study focused on several potential problems with election security. The first problem arose during the days of the coronavirus outbreak. COVID-19 affected the elections of 2020 and 2022 by significantly increasing the number of early voting and mail-in ballots across the State. More than 50 percent of voters in Douglas County, for example, now vote early or by mail. The increase of early voting and voting by mail has increased the potential for voter fraud by illegally stuffing the ballot box.

Voting with a photo ID is also troublesome. Ever since voters passed Initiative 432 in 2022, which requires voters to show a photo ID when voting, validating mail-in ballots and ballots placed in drop boxes has become an issue. While state law currently requires voters to show a photo ID when they register to vote and to record their driver’s license number on their early voting or mail-in ballot, this process skirts the requirement to show a photo ID at the actual time of voting and opens the door for anyone who illicitly obtains driver’s license numbers to cast mail-in ballots for other registered voters.

Another problem relates to the advancement of election software and tabulating machines. For example, a skilled hacker might want to cheat in the election by changing the data contained in voter rolls stored by the software and counted in the tabulating machines. Because this data eventually gets stored onto a military grade thumb drive before it gets sent to the Nebraska Secretary of State to be certified, the possibility for interference exists at this point in the process. For example, a fraudster would merely have to replace the military grade thumb drive with one of his own in order to change the outcome of an election.

Finally, the potential for election fraud exists with the ballot counting machines themselves. While the Election Systems & Software (ES&S) ballot counting machines used in Nebraska never come with modems already installed, the worry is that one could be secretly installed shortly before an election, giving online access to nefarious groups or even to foreign agents. Because the ES&S contract forbids the Nebraska Secretary of State from opening up the machines and inspecting them for himself without authorized personnel being present from ES&S, this has caused suspicion about the use of such ballot counting machines. However, both Wayne Bena, the Assistant Secretary of State, and Chris Wlaschin of ES&S, agreed at the public hearing that such an inspection could be arranged.

I share these things with you today, not to cause anxiety about our elections, but to show you how the Legislature has been taking positive steps forward to protect the integrity of our elections. Last year I had introduced two bills that would have solved these problems, LB 228 and LB230, but neither bill advanced out of the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee. When it comes to elections, the time to act is before we have a problem.

This week I want to continue my explanation of LB 34 and what it means to you as a property tax payer. Three lawmakers, Sen. Steve Halloran (LD33), Sen. Justin Wayne (LD13), and myself did a press release last week, alerting members of the public to the fact that taxpayers will not be able to claim their property tax credit for their 2023 property taxes paid. That press release got the attention of the members of the Legislature’s Revenue Committee and the Nebraska Department of Revenue, who are now trying to protect the State’s so-called money. Therefore, I will explain exactly what LB34 will do to taxpayers who paid their property taxes for 2023 in the calendar year of 2024.

To start, let’s assume for the moment that your tax credit for the property taxes you paid in 2023 amounts to $1000. In that case, the property tax credit that you would ordinarily claim on your 2024 income tax return would be $1,000. Because you would file that income tax return at the end of the two-year cycle, which occurs in the year 2025, you then should be eligible to receive a total credit of $2000 – That is, $1,000 for your 2023 taxes and another $1000 for your 2024 taxes.

So, what’s the problem? After the passage of LB 34, you will no longer be able to collect the $1000 credit for your 2023 property taxes. Instead, you will now get a $1000 credit that you won’t have to file to collect on your income taxes for your 2024 property taxes. After the two-year property tax cycle, under LB 34, you will have received only a $1000 total credit. You will never see the $1,000 credit owed to you for your 2023 property taxes. It’s now gone. It has disappeared into thin air.

The language of LB 34 means that you have forever lost the opportunity to collect the credit of $1000 owed to you for your 2023 property taxes. Therefore, you have personally funded your own property tax relief for 2024 with the credit you should have received for your 2023 property taxes.

The Governor’s Office, the Nebraska Department of Revenue, and the Legislature’s Revenue Committee want you to believe that you are being held harmless because you will be receiving a $1000 credit frontloaded for your 24 taxes, but nothing could be further from the truth. As you see from this example, you have lost the $1,000 that you should have received for your 2023 property taxes. In other words, this is a retroactive property tax increase for the property taxes you paid for 2023.

It is now known that the members of the Legislature’s Revenue Committee, the Legislature’s Budget Office, and several other State Senators knew this before the vote was ever taken on LB 34. They knew beforehand that the bill was going to remove your opportunity to collect your credit for your 2023 property taxes. Now they are spending a significant amount of time trying to convince you that you did not lose anything simply because you will receive a nice credit on your 24 property taxes. it is quite obvious now that the old saying rings true that “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”

Over the past four years, those who have been eligible to claim their property tax credit but who never did so, constitute a significant percentage of the population of the state. 45 percent of the money that was appropriated for the credit was never claimed because, for whatever reason, those taxpayers never filed the necessary paperwork to get the credit. That total amount is just over $700 million. If those people would have filed for the credit, the state would’ve had to give away that $700 million in the form of credits to those taxpayers, so the State’s revenue has increased over the last four years by $700 million because those people never claimed their credits. So, the question now must be asked: Who does the money belong to? You guessed it. It’s the people’s money. The State of Nebraska does not really have any money, because everything it has comes from the taxpayer.

Another issue that LB 34 has created for those who pay quarterly estimates on their income taxes is that they may find themselves short.  This is so because they have been paying their estimates considering the reduction by the credits of the property taxes that went to the schools in the past years.  The good news is that the Revenue Department said they will not fine people for under-funding their payments.

Please contact the Governor’s Office and your State Senator and tell them that they must fix this issue before we all file our income taxes next spring.

As you may recall, I have written about the not-so-special legislative session in some of my recent articles. For the past week I have been researching the implementation of LB 34, the so-called property tax relief bill that was passed during the special session of the Legislature in August. As I have read and reread that legislation, it has become apparent to me that the legislature, including me, missed an important piece about how that bill would be implemented.

The special session started with the Governor’s proposal, which was LB1. I spent the better part of a day reading the 144 pages of that bill, making notes, and jotting down questions that I had about it. My work turned out to be a waste of time because before LB1 advanced to the floor it was changed with a completely new bill, LB9.

My staff and I were busy trying to understand the ramifications of LB9, which was 120 pages long, when it was suddenly withdrawn and replaced with yet another bill, LB34. LB 34 became the bill that would finally pass in the Legislature and make your property tax relief dollars go directly to the schools, so you would not have to claim the 30 percent credit any more on your income tax return.

When LB 34 was being debated on the floor of the Legislature, I failed to catch some very important language in the bill, which removed the opportunity for taxpayers to collect their 30 percent property tax rebate for the taxes they paid to the public schools for the year 2023. According to the language of the bill, property tax credits will no longer be available as of January 1, 2024.

Whether property owners paid their 2023 property taxes personally or through their escrow accounts in 2024, does not matter, because neither one will be able to collect the 30 percent property tax credit allotted to them for the year 2023.

The loss of those property tax credits will result in the State retaining the credit in the State’s general fund. Last year those property tax credits added up to $565 million. The State of Nebraska will now keep those property tax credits from 2023 and use that $565 million to fund the reduction in property taxes planned for 2024. So, those paying property taxes are funding their property tax relief for 2024 with their lost credit from 2023.

When I inquired about how the State of Nebraska intends to make up for these lost property tax credits from 2023, the response I received was not very convincing. The State wants the public to believe that the reduction in property taxes that will take place next year for the tax year of 2024 somehow makes up for the loss of the property tax credit that taxpayers were denied for their 2023 property taxes.

I spent several hours with the budget office trying to explain to them how the property tax credit for 2023 will be forever lost. They were not convinced. Because the State plans to keep the $565 million owed to the taxpayers from their 2023 property taxes, the taxpayers, unbeknownst to them, will be funding their own property tax reduction for 2024.

I regret that I did not catch this mistake before LB34 was passed in the Legislature during the special session. Nevertheless, when you file your income taxes next spring, be prepared, because you will not be able to claim the same 30 percent property tax credit that you have received in the past. So, your taxes for 2023 will be much higher than they were in 2022.

Removing the tax credit for 2023 amounts to a retroactive property tax increase. The State is increasing each person’s taxes in 2023 in order to give them a property tax decrease in 2024. There are only two ways to make the taxpayer whole again: The State could allow each taxpayer to claim the credit for their 2023 property taxes when they file their income tax return in 2025, or the State could double the discount in property taxes for 2024 to make up for the credit loss in 2023.

The goal of the not-so-special session was supposed to be about increasing property tax relief, not taking property tax relief away from those who were already getting it and giving it to those who weren’t.