I serve on the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee is charged with the task of putting together the State’s budget. In other words, we decide how the State spends its money, and this year we have a lot of extra money to spend.

Last Thursday the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee finished hearings on 123 bills. That is the highest number of bills ever to be assigned to the Appropriations Committee. The reason we had so many bills this year had to do with the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, otherwise known as ARPA. The federal government has given Nebraska approximately $500 million to spend on ARPA projects this year and another $500 million for next year.

These 123 bills made requests for ARPA funds totaling more than $4 billion! The introducers of these bills would often come before the Appropriations Committee and ask for $100 million.

For example, on Tuesday of last week we had requests totaling $500 million. Then, on Wednesday we had requests for $350 million. Thursday was a slow day. On Thursday we only received requests for $185 million.

Here is an example of some of the requests we get. One request that came in was to give bonuses to every worker in one particular State agency. That State agency asked for $8,500 per employee.

Making decisions about who gets ARPA funds is a difficult task. Some would say I signed up to be on the Appropriations Committee, so suck it up and deal with it. While I agree with that sentiment, I still have to make decisions about where these monies should go.

So, this has been my approach. First, and foremost, ARPA monies should not be used to obligate the State down the road. Most appropriations made to current programs or to starting up a new program will be an ongoing obligation well into the future. Almost all of the introducers of these 123 bills stated at some point during their testimony that their bill would be a one-time expenditure only. But, upon closer examination, I found that very few of these bills ever fit that category.

I took it upon myself to research how often a government program ends once it has been started. The only answer I have been able to find, thus far, is that there may have been one program which was actually allowed to sunset after it was initially funded by the State.

So these so-called “one-time expenditures” will most likely become on-going obligations to our State budget year-after-year once they get approved. Even if we only spent half of the ARPA funds given to us by the federal government, we would grow our state budget by 10 percent.

Growing our state budget by 10 to 20 percent is unacceptable. Once the federal government turns off the spigot to these ARPA funds, the State will be left holding the bag and there will be a lot of pressure for lawmakers to continue funding these programs at ever-increasing higher levels. I’m not saying that some of these programs are not worth funding, but State Legislators need to be mindful of these long-term effects before they go on a shopping spree with other people’s money.

Last Thursday the Revenue Committee advanced my priority bill up to General File, which means that the bill will now get debated on the floor of the Legislature. LR 264 CA is my priority bill, which is a resolution for a constitutional amendment for the consumption tax. If LR 264 CA passes in the Legislature this year, voters will have the opportunity to vote on the ballot initiative to amend the Nebraska State Constitution in November. Before we can pass any legislation to rollout the consumption tax, the Nebraska State Constitution must first be amended.

Nebraska’s tax system is broken and needs to be replaced. We can no longer afford to fix our broken tax system through slow, incremental legislative changes. Young people are leaving the State, the elderly cannot afford to live here, and companies struggle to find employees.

Nebraska’s tax system needs to be blown up! Iowa has now set the example for Nebraska. In the period from 2011 through 2020 Iowa experienced 155 farm bankruptcies, so their state legislators decided that it was time to do something drastic. Last week Iowa Legislators passed legislation to implement a 3.9 percent flat rate income tax. While the consumption is far superior to the income tax, Iowa’s legislators demonstrated the same kind of resolve that Nebraska’s State Senators need to exhibit in order to fix our broken tax code. Like Iowa, the time has come for Nebraska to do something drastic.

If Nebraska converts to the consumption tax, our citizens will be better off than Iowa’s citizens in three ways, and today I would like to show you three ways that the consumption tax is superior to Iowa’s flat rate income tax.

First, people should only be taxed once. While Iowa eliminated taxes on retirement income, they retained their state sales tax, the excise tax, and their property tax in addition to their flat rate income tax. To the contrary, LR 264 CA would repeal all taxes, except for the consumption tax and the excise tax. Under the consumption tax a good or service can only be taxed under the consumption tax or the excise tax, but never under both.

Second, people should know how much they pay in taxes to the State. Although Iowa has adopted a flat rate income tax, their tax code remains complicated and is not readily apparent to taxpayers. Iowans will never know how much they really pay to the State in taxes each year. By imposing so many different kinds of taxes on the people, Iowans have to be accountants to know how much they pay in taxes each year. To the contrary, under the consumption tax retail receipts would be required to report the taxes paid for every new good or service purchased for consumption in Nebraska.

Third, taxes should never impede investment. By taxing the income of its citizens, Iowa limits the ability of its citizens to invest their hard-earned money. The income tax always leaves the taxpayer with less money to invest. To the contrary, the consumption tax never taxes investments and always leaves open the option to invest one’s hard-earned money before paying taxes. The consumption tax gives each citizen the option to either invest their income or to pay taxes. Consequently, the consumption tax encourages savings and investment, whereas the income tax, including the flat tax, does not.

As you can see, the time has come to replace Nebraska’s broken tax system with one that works. While Iowa has taken a step in the right direction, their solution does not resolve all of their tax problems. By passing the consumption tax, Nebraska would have the best tax code in the nation.

Whenever a bill in the Nebraska State Legislature receives no opposition testimony at its public hearing and the committee members all support the bill, it becomes eligible for the consent calendar. The Speaker of the Legislature is the keeper of the consent calendar. Once the Speaker of the Legislature decides to place a bill on the consent calendar, it gets only 15 minutes of debate on the floor of the Legislature. Today I would like to tell you about four bills of mine that I have requested the Speaker to place on the consent calendar.

The first bill that qualifies for the consent calendar is LB 742. This is a bill which allows public bodies to store their meeting minutes electronically. Prior to this year Nebraska State Statutes were unclear about allowing public bodies to store their meeting minutes electronically. Some lawyers read the law as only allowing K-12 public school boards and Educational Service Units to store their meeting minutes electronically. LB 742 clarifies the law so that all public bodies can store their meeting minutes electronically.

LB 744 is another candidate for the consent calendar. I introduced this bill to clarify how the Brand Committee was intending to regulate electronic identification and inspection of cattle. The bill as originally written would have prevented the Brand Committee from implementing their plan. However, after talking with the members of the Brand Committee, I learned about their need to protect the privacy of cattlemen. So, I changed the entire nature of this bill with an amendment. This amendment, which now becomes the bill, protects the private information of cattlemen. This kind of sensitive information will no longer be available to those who want to adversely disrupt Nebraska’s ranching operations.

The next consent calendar bill is LB 1122, a bill that will permit land surveyors to enter private lands. Because many landowners live out of state, getting permission to enter private lands for surveying purposes has become a problem. For example, when private surveyors need to find section corners they may have to travel several miles from the original site in order to find a reference point marker. Surveyors may not know which properties they need to access and getting permission from every landowner delays the time it takes for them to complete their work. So, LB 1122 allows land surveyors to access private lands lawfully. The bill also holds them accountable for any damages they might do to property or crops while doing their work.

Finally, LB 1124 allows heirs to avoid probate court. This bill raises the maximum value of personal property in a deceased person’s estate from $50,000 to $200,000 for small estate affidavits. Small estate affidavits are used to avoid probate court whenever a deceased person has no will or living trust. This bill will save Nebraska’s heirs thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees. To my surprise no lawyers came out to oppose this bill!

The ideas for these consent calendar bills came from constituents who just needed some help. It has been an honor to serve the people of Western Nebraska, and it always makes my job more rewarding when I know that my bills are easing the burden of government for the people of Nebraska.

One of the bills that I have co-signed this year is LB 773. This bill would authorize private citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Currently, the Concealed Handgun Permit Act allows cities to restrict the concealing of a handgun only to authorized permit holders. LB 773 would allow all Nebraskans to conceal their weapons anywhere in the state without having to carry such a permit. However, the bill would not apply to those who have already been prohibited from carrying a handgun either by law or by the courts.

So, why is LB 773 so important? To start, the U.S. Constitution guarantees to the citizens of the United States the right to keep and to bear arms without government infringement upon that right. Generally, the rights contained in the Bill of Rights should not be infringed upon by governments. The right to keep and to bear arms is a universal right with exceptions made only for those who abuse that right. Laws which place undue burdens upon law-abiding citizens to use firearms are out of bounds.

The primary reason that people choose to conceal a handgun is for personal protection. According to the Pew Research Center, two-thirds of gun owners cited self-defense as their top reason for owning a firearm in a 2017 survey. Article 1-1 of the Nebraska State Constitution guarantees to Nebraskans the right to keep and to bear arms for the purpose of “defense of self, family, home and others.” Moreover, the United States Supreme Court ruled in 2008 in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, and again in 2010 in the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago that citizens of the United States have a fundamental right to use firearms for personal protection. As the Boy Scout motto says, those who carry firearms for personal protection do so simply to “be prepared.”

Police reaction time is often much too slow. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics the average reaction time it takes for police to respond to an incident is 19 minutes. Even when that reaction time is cut in half, nine minutes can be a lot of time to wait when someone is pointing a gun at you. Once a gun gets introduced into a conflict, seconds matter. Allowing people to conceal their own weapons for personal protection evens the playing field between criminals and law-abiding citizens.

Nebraska’s Concealed Handgun Permit Act contains four restrictions which I believe undermine and place undue hardship upon Nebraskans who own handguns. In order to get a conceal-carry handgun permit in Nebraska, a handgun owner must pay a $100 fee, pass a handgun and safety training course approved by the Nebraska State Patrol, get fingerprinted, and submit their application in person to the Nebraska State Patrol.

These restrictions are wrong. Charging a fee to practice a right contained in the 2nd Amendment and the Nebraska State Constitution undermines that practice as a fundamental right. Passing a government approved handgun and safety course constitutes a gross form of government infringement upon that right. Getting fingerprinted constitutes a violation of one’s personal right to privacy. Finally, submitting the application in person poses an undue burden upon Nebraskans, especially those who live in rural areas far away from the nearest office of the Nebraska State Patrol.

I am not alone in supporting LB 773. Besides Sen. Tom Brewer, who introduced the bill, LB 773 has 20 other co-sponsors! Seldom does a bill ever get this kind of widespread support in the Unicameral Legislature. Nebraskans love their 2nd Amendment rights and LB 773 is a bill that I believe the majority of Nebraskans would like to see become a law.

Last Thursday the Legislature’s Revenue Committee held a public hearing at the Capitol on LR264CA, which is my resolution for a constitutional amendment for the consumption tax. The resolution would put an initiative for the consumption tax on the ballot for the November 8 election. The time has come for the citizens of Nebraska to be given the opportunity to decide how they should be taxed.

I would like to begin by saying thank you to all those who drove to Lincoln to testify in person at the public hearing. I am honored that so many people came out to support this resolution. Moreover, the testimonies they gave covered a wide range of relevant topics without repeating the same concerns.

The public hearing was a huge success. 29 citizens came out to testify in favor of the consumption tax. Not a single private citizens came out to testify in person against the consumption tax. In addition, 75 supporters of the consumption tax submitted online comments for the public record.

The lobbyists who testified against the consumption tax did a very poor job. These lobbyists were all paid to oppose the consumption tax, and each one proved that they had not read the bill, could not perform basic math skills, tried to deceive the members of the Revenue Committee, or did all three. Below are three examples of the kind of ridiculous and invalid testimonies offered by these lobbyists.

Mr. Brian Slone, who represents the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce & Industry, told the Revenue Committee that the State of Nebraska would have to collect $124,000 from every household in Nebraska in order for the consumption tax to be revenue neutral. That’s ridiculous! There are 759,000 households in Nebraska according to the latest census, so his numbers don’t come close to adding up. I’ll let you do the math to see how far off he really was.

A. Loy Todd Jr., representing the Nebraska New Car and Truck Dealers Association, tried to make the case that the State would lose money because people would buy their new cars across state lines; however, I reminded the members of the Revenue Committee in my closing comments that it does not matter where you purchase a new car because the taxes are paid, not at the car dealership, but at the courthouse! Therefore, the State would not lose so much as a dime.

Kent Rogert who represented the wine industry and who asked who would want to buy used wine (what exactly is used wine?), tried to make the case that wine would be double-taxed. He claimed that wine would first be subject to the consumption tax and then subject to the excise tax on alcohol. Rogert clearly did not read our bill or understand how the consumption tax works, because the consumption tax only taxes a good or service one time. Goods and services are classified as either subject to the consumption tax or subject to the excise tax, but never to both.

Finally, the biggest problem which has dogged the consumption tax ever since I first introduced it has been the premium tax on insurance policies. Currently, Nebraska imposes a very low one percent premium tax on insurance policies. The worry has been that if insurance policies were subjected to the consumption tax, then the insurance premium tax rate would increase to 8.97 percent or 5.5 percent for the rate after the pre-bate gets factored in.

The good news is that we have solved the insurance premium tax problem. When the Beacon Hill Institute published their dynamic study on the consumption tax for the State of Nebraska back in January 2021 they did not include the insurance premium tax in their calculations for the consumption tax rate. Moreover, the insurance premium tax qualifies as a kind of excise tax. Because the insurance premium tax is an excise tax, it cannot be made subject to the consumption tax. By rule, no good or service may be taxed twice under the consumption tax. Therefore, the insurance premium tax would remain (just as it currently is) at one percent under our proposal.

Not a single lobbyist was able to make a coherent or legitimate criticism against the consumption tax. Even the Open Sky Institute failed to show the committee members that they had actually read our plan because they falsely accused it of promoting a regressive tax. As you can see, there really are no good reasons to oppose the consumption tax. The consumption tax would solve all of our tax problems, make Nebraska the most tax friendly state in the Union, and create economic growth like we’ve never seen before.

Ever since being elected to the State Legislature back in 2016, I have received more emails in support of an Article V convention of the states than on any other single issue by a long shot. The emails I receive in support of a convention of the states out-number those in opposition to it by a margin of about twenty to one. So, there is no question that voters in the Panhandle of Nebraska support LR 14, the resolution which calls for a convention of the states.

Once LR 14 passes in the Legislature, it would serve as Nebraska’s application for a convention of the states under Article V of the United States Constitution. Two-thirds of the states would have to pass similar legislation in order to successfully call for a convention of the states. A convention of the states would allow the fifty states to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. These amendment proposals would then have to be ratified by two-thirds of the states in order to successfully amend the United States Constitution.

Last year LR 14 was voted out of the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee but failed to advance beyond the first round of debate on the floor of the Legislature by only two votes. By declaring LR 14 as his priority bill again for 2022, Sen. Steve Halloran of Hastings, the introducer of the resolution, was able to bring the resolution back up to the floor for another round of debate and another vote. On January 10th the resolution advanced to Select File by a vote of 32-10; then, ten days later it advanced to Final Reading on a vote of 32-8. So, LR 14 will likely pass the final legislative hurdle sometime later this week.

Successful legislation is needed by 34 states in order to call for a convention of the states. Nebraska will likely become the 16th state to pass this kind of legislation. However, the remaining states would only get five years to pass their legislation before Nebraska’s expires. Sen. Wendy DeBoer of Omaha successfully amended LR 14 last week to include a proviso that the resolution expires on February 1, 2027. This means that LR 14 would only be good for the next five years.

LR 14 puts limits around what could be discussed at a convention of the states. Just like legislation passed by the other 15 states, LR 14 would limit amendment proposals to three topics. Amendment proposals would be limited to imposing fiscal restraints on the federal government, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office for officials and members of Congress. Any other topic would be ruled as out of bounds. This is important information to know because many opponents of LR 14 wrongfully believe that a convention of the states could stray away from these three topics. However, LR 14 was very carefully worded so as to avoid a runaway convention.

I believe a convention of the states is very much needed. Federal spending is out of control. According to the U.S. Debt Clock, our national debt is now nearing $30 trillion and this is a debt that our grandchildren and our great grandchildren will likely never pay off.

The federal government has grown too big. Whether we want to talk about federal vaccine mandates or critical race theory being taught in our public schools, there can be no question that the federal government has gained too much power over our states, over our local governments, and even over our individual lives.

Finally, we need term limits in our federal government. The disaster of a man who has become our nation’s 46th president shows why term limits are so important. Biden represented the State of Delaware in the United States Senate from 1973 to 2009 without ever passing any kind of meaningful legislation, except for his 1994 “tough on crime” bill, which he later contradicted as president of the United States by directing the Department of Justice to focus their efforts on domestic terrorism, law enforcement, and parents who complain about the teaching of critical race theory. For these reasons and more, I believe an Article V convention of the states is needed in order to restore stability to our federal government.

Nebraska’s economy has weathered the COVID-19 pandemic better than any other state in the Union. According to Politico’s State Pandemic Response Scorecard, Nebraska’s economy ranks first in the nation. Nebraska continues to enjoy record low unemployment, and last fall the Department of Revenue reported that our state’s incoming tax revenues beat the projection of the Forecasting Board by 7.7 percent.

Despite our economy doing so well, the State of Nebraska has been given more than a billion dollars in federal funds to spend this year and next year from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Nebraska is slated to receive $520 million for 2022 and another $520 million for 2023 for a grand total of $1,040,000,000.

Because I have a seat on the Legislature’s Appropriations Committee, just how to spend this money is something that concerns me directly. The principles of fiscal responsibility have never been more relevant to our State than now. Therefore, today I would like to tell you about the three most important principles of fiscal responsibility which should guide our lawmakers as they spend this money.

First, the guidelines for spending ARPA funds are very confusing and convoluted. Lawyers even have a difficult time deciphering the ARPA rules. If we do not carefully abide by the rules for spending ARPA funds, we may find ourselves in a position of having to pay the money back to the federal government. The last thing Nebraskans need on their backs is the added burden of giving even more of their hard-earned money to the federal government. Therefore, the first principle I will follow is to make sure that all of our ARPA monies stay in Nebraska.

Second, ARPA funds need to be used for one-time expenditures only. Because we will not be receiving these federal monies year-after-year, ARPA funds should not be used to create new programs which will obligate State monies for years to come. Instead, ARPA funds provide our state with the unique opportunity to fix or upgrade those things which have deteriorated over the years.

Third, ARPA monies need to be used to benefit the people of Nebraska, not government agencies. The primary purpose of these ARPA funds is to put Americans back on their feet and to help them recover from the ramifications of the COVID-19 restrictions. Over the course of the past two years many small businesses were forced to close their doors, people were laid off from their jobs, and people struggled to make ends meet. Therefore, ARPA funds need to be used to help small businesses succeed, employ more Nebraskans, and provide relief to struggling families.

Lawmakers will need to practice fiscal restraint this year. Spending a billion dollars of other people’s money is a difficult task when the goal is to do it in a fiscally responsible way. My hope is that the Legislature won’t just view these ARPA funds as free money to spend on furthering their favorite government programs.

Government money is never free. Whether we realize it or not, Americans will eventually have to pay back every dime that gets spent out of these ARPA funds. The U.S. national debt is nearing $30 trillion. If Americans were to pay off their total indebtedness this year, every taxpayer would have to somehow come up with $238,534, according to the U.S. Debt Clock. We need to remember that the federal money we spend today will have to be paid back by future generations of Americans. Therefore, we need to use these ARPA funds to grow our state’s economy so that future generations of Nebraskans will be able to live and thrive in our state.

The second session of the 107th Legislature has already begun and new bills are now being introduced. Although new bills may only be introduced within the first ten legislative days of the session, I expect approximately 500 new bills to be introduced this year. Many of these bills will likely venture outside of the scope of what good government ought to do. Therefore, today I would like to remind my readers about what good government is supposed to do.

Milton Friedman once famously said that “Freedom is a tenable objective only for responsible individuals.” He was right. Government is needed because human beings are prone to doing what is morally wrong and irresponsible. In Christianity, we call this kind of behavior sin. In American politics, though, this is the kind of behavior which treads on our most basic rights and liberties. Therefore, the primary purpose of government is to protect those rights and liberties guaranteed to us by the American Constitution and the Nebraska State Constitution. Tyranny and oppression are what results when governments stray too far away from this primary purpose of government.

Because the primary duty of government is to protect our rights and liberties, it is unreasonable to ask the government to do that which goes beyond these limits. For example, compassion is neither a right nor a liberty; instead, it is a virtue which must be learned and practiced on a completely voluntary basis. Governments cannot coerce their citizens to be compassionate. A government which regulates compassion ends up oppressing its own citizens by punishing them for non-compliance, and this results in a tyrannical government that is uncompassionate towards its own citizens.

What about government spending? Good governments tend to only spend taxpayer monies on what is necessary to secure our basic rights and liberties. Whenever governments stray too far away from this primary purpose of government, they inevitably fall into fiscal irresponsibility, waste, and reckless spending. Many of our State agencies have little or nothing to do with securing our basic rights and liberties.

American society has been moving further and further away from this understanding of the primary function of government. Today too many Americans believe it is the primary responsibility of the government to take care of them and to solve all of society’s problems. They expect the government to take responsibility for their lives from the cradle to the grave. They forget that our American form of government is a form of self-rule and is comprised of the governed. As president Abraham Lincoln famously said in his Gettysburg Address, our constitutional republic is supposed to be “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

As the second session of the 107th Legislature convenes this year, I will be on the lookout for those bills which protect our constitutional rights and liberties. These are the bills which matter most, and these are the kinds of bills which I will be quick to introduce and to co-sign. Whether they be bills that protect unvaccinated persons from undue government mandates, bills that protect our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, or bills that protect our taxpayers from being over-taxed by the government, these are the kinds of bills that will merit my attention this year.

In my July 10, 2020 article I wrote about the use of certain therapeutic re-purposed prescription drugs for the treatment of COVID-19 symptoms. I especially talked about the potential benefits of inhaled budesonide and hydroxychloroquine. After I published that article, I received some harsh criticism from several folks who accused me of not following the science. Well, it turns out 18 months later that I was right all along.

Treating the symptoms of original COVID-19, along with its delta and omicron variants, has been driven by politics rather than science from the very beginning. The pharmaceutical companies who make the vaccines administered in the United States get paid by the federal government every time someone gets vaccinated, including the booster shots. So, exploring treatments of COVID-19 with inexpensive therapeutic repurposed drugs, such as budesonide, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin, undermines the profit margins that these large pharmaceutical companies expect to make.

There is a growing number of people who have been reading the science on the coronavirus and who are turning to off-label utilization of (i.e. utilizing a drug for purposes other than those approved by the FDA when a company originally files for approval) therapeutic drugs as an alternative to vaccines, especially for treating the symptoms of the coronavirus. My intention today is not to dissuade you from getting vaccinated against COVID-19; instead, I believe that the coronavirus vaccines should be a private matter between an individual, his or her physician, and healthcare team without any undue interference from the government. Government mandates which force people to get vaccinated against their will are grossly immoral and inappropriate, especially in a society where freedom reigns.

Some institutions are now secretly turning to therapeutic drugs to treat the symptoms of COVID-19. One such institution is the NFL. The Green Bay Packers star quarterback, Aaron Rogers, recently let the cat out of the bag when he was interviewed on Pat McAfee’s Sirius XM show. When Rogers contracted the disease earlier this year, he took ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as well as monoclonal antibodies. Rogers told McAfee during the interview, “There are many teams who are recommending a lot of the same treatments I got for their players.”

In response to how Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN’s medical correspondent, scorned the use of ivermectin as a horse dewormer, Rogers said, during the interview “If you want to rip on me for taking horse dewormer, and whatever else you want to talk about, that’s fine. But I also got better in 48 hours. And I had symptoms.” Numerous studies have shown that ivermectin has many anti-viral properties which Dr. Gupta failed to acknowledge to his CNN audience.

Rogers ended that segment of the interview by calling for a fair and honest debate on the use of therapeutic drugs for treating coronavirus symptoms. Rogers called for a public debate between Dr. Sanjay Gupta and Dr. Peter McCullough, who is one of the world’s leading cardiologists and epidemiologists, who advocates for the use of these therapeutic drugs. Rogers said, “Let’s have a debate. Let’s hear about sides. Wouldn’t that be awesome?” I agree.

Until we can have an honest and fair debate in our country about how best to treat the coronavirus and its variants, news about the coronavirus will continue to be slanted by political ideologies and spun by corporate interests. We owe it to the citizens of the United States of America to end the cancelling of all dissenting opinions and to give them news instead of propaganda.

This is the calm before the storm. The second session of the 107th Legislature is about to convene. This year the legislative session will start on January 5 and will go into the month of April. This year’s legislative session will be the shorter 60-day session. Because there will be fewer days on the legislative calendar, it will be even more difficult to get bills passed into law.

Many of you would like to know what I have been working on for next year, so now I will tell you. The bills that I will introduce next year will cover a wide variety of topics and address many of the most urgent and pressing concerns Nebraskans have about our State.

As you may have guessed, the consumption tax has been my highest priority this past year and it will continue to be my highest priority throughout the upcoming legislative session. I will reintroduce a new resolution for a constitutional amendment with even better ballot language than the one before. This resolution for a constitutional amendment is needed to fix our broken tax system and to give Nebraskans the kind of meaningful tax relief they really need. The beauty of the consumption tax is that it can never over-tax the taxpayer and it puts the taxpayer in charge of how much he or she pays in taxes throughout the year. It does this because it operates on a pay-as-you-go basis.

I will also introduce legislation to protect unvaccinated persons from the unconstitutional Biden mandates. Getting vaccinated is a personal choice, which should never be mandated by any branch of the government. The Biden vaccine mandates constitute a gross infringement upon our basic rights and liberties as human beings. What goes into a person’s body, including medicine, ought to be an individual’s decision, not that of the government.

As I mentioned during the summer, K-12 public schools in Nebraska should not begin holding classes until after Labor Day. The teacher training and in-service days may be held in August, so that the weekly school calendar does not get interrupted during the academic school year. Therefore, my legislation will set the K-12 academic school year from after Labor Day to before Memorial Day.

I will also introduce legislation to put some controls on the Brand Committee. The Brand Committee has been acting out of control for quite some time and so it is time to rein them in. Once my legislation becomes law, the Brand Committee will no longer be able to hold their subcommittee meetings in secret nor will they be able to make decisions about the electronic identification of cattle.

This past year I have done much to investigate our Natural Resources Districts (NRD). LR23 was a resolution for an interim study that I introduced earlier this year which investigates whether the NRDs are abiding by their statutory purposes. This has been an ongoing investigation which has uncovered a wealth of information. I intend to continue investigating the NRDs throughout the second session of the 107th Legislature. These investigations will likely conclude with impending legislation.

Finally, I have not forgotten about the many problems that the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission has failed to address. Although they now have new leadership, the same problems still exist. Ignoring these problems is not an answer that I will accept. Therefore, I will continue to introduce bills that will address these problems. Problems with over-populations of antelope, deer and elk are better solved with competent leadership than with legislation, but when the Game and Parks Commission fails to take appropriate actions, they effectively kick these problems to the Legislature.

As you can see, the second session of the 107th Legislature promises to be full of lively debate. Hopefully, though, our State Senators will work for the good of the people. Please feel free to contact my office any time with your questions, comments, or concerns at (402) 471-2616.