February 1, 2024 was a good day for promoting the EPIC Option Consumption Tax. What happened on that day affected the consumption tax movement in a very odd way when the Revenue Committee held public hearings on ten of the Governor’s tax bills. I would like to thank Gov. Pillen for convincing several State Senators to introduce tax bills on his behalf which were all designed to shift the tax burden of Nebraskans onto sales taxes without reducing their overall tax burden. The Governor’s new tax plan has caused many people to start paying attention.

The Governor’s tax bills shift more of the overall tax burden onto the state sales tax without solving the problem of higher taxes. The Governor’s plan adds a full percentage point to the state sales tax, resulting in a higher rate of 6.5 percent. Then, the Governor’s tax plan removes sales tax exemptions for farmers, accountants, lawyers, veterinarians, amusement game distributors, and owners of self-storage facilities, just to name a few. The elimination of these sales tax exemptions would bring in millions of new dollars for the State of Nebraska.

Gov. Pillen has the noble goal of reducing property taxes by 40 percent. However, I don’t believe his plan will work. Nebraskans should not except such a statement from me alone. Instead, listen to the people. Hundreds of Nebraskans turned out to voice their opposition to the Governor’s tax plan last Thursday. For example, one of the Governor’s tax bills received 115 online opponents while only three people testified online in favor of the bill, and when Sen. Lou Ann Linehan, chair of the Revenue Committee, called for proponents to come forward to testify in person for another one of the Governor’s tax bills, no one even bothered to show up. The bottom line is that Nebraskans do not like the Governor’s new tax plan.

Nebraskans are opposed to the Governor’s new tax plan because it is an overall tax increase disguised as property tax relief. For example, Sen. Dungan, who is a member of the Revenue Committee, questioned a member of Gov. Pillen’s 35-member tax committee at the hearing only to discover that the 40 percent threshold for property tax relief was nothing more than an arbitrary number contrived by the committee members in order to better sell the Governor’s new tax plan.

The people are no longer falling for these kinds of government tricks. For example, Unicameral Watch is a popular Facebook group which prides itself on monitoring the activities of the state government for purposes of transparency and accountability. Here is their assessment of what transpired in the Revenue Committee that day: “What happened today is a 1 billion dollar tax increase on Nebraska taxpayers…” They further described the Governor’s tax plan as “MASSIVE tax increases” that would “pulverize the poor and Middle Class, young farmers, small business owners and other Nebraskans.” Well, they are exactly right.

The Governor’s tax plan would result in massive border bleed. Border bleed occurs when people purchase products and services cheaper across the state lines. Unlike the EPIC Option Consumption Tax, which would remove hidden taxes from a product, making them cheaper in Nebraska than in other states, Gov. Pillen’s tax plan would have the opposite effect. Why would anyone buy products in Nebraska with a 6.5 percent sales tax rate when they can hop across the border and pay 4 percent in Wyoming? Gov. Pillen’s tax plan would hurt retails sales in border cities such as Omaha and Scottsbluff.

Personally, I am planning now to take full advantage of the border bleed problem that the Governor’s new tax plan will create. Because the Governor intends to remove the sales tax exemption on farm repair parts, I intend to create a new start-up company with a catchy name like “Farm Dash” whereby the company would transport non-taxed farm repair products from Wyoming to farmers living in Nebraska. Farm Dash would pick up and deliver farm repair parts to folks living in Nebraska.

The Governor has betrayed the good citizens of Nebraska. Nebraskans are now in a heap of trouble as far as our tax system goes. Unicameral Watch hit the nail on the head in their article when they said, “Nebraskans better start noticing the signs of a state under severe distress.” They concluded their article by stating that Nebraskans now have “no choice but to pass EPIC…” I heartily agree.

History Nebraska is out of control. So, one of the bills I introduced this year, LB 1169, is a bill to make History Nebraska a code agency, bringing the Society under the control of the Governor. This bill has become necessary due to the way state revenues have been misused by the agency in the past and how History Nebraska has been organized …or should I say, disorganized.

Last year a Nebraska State Auditor’s report alleged that History Nebraska misused and misappropriated state funds. Trevor Jones, the former director of History Nebraska, was accused of embezzlement, theft, and official misconduct after he deposited a check for $270,000 into a bank account for the History Nebraska Foundation, a competing foundation that he helped create. Because the money had been appropriated as part of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), the check should have been deposited with the State Treasurer.

If any of this sounds confusing – well, it should. The Nebraska State Historical Society is chaotically organized. The Nebraska State Historical Society members changed the name of the agency to History Nebraska in 2019. Although the Society became a state agency back in 1994, the Society’s organization has lacked accountability to the State. The Society is run by a board of trustees consisting of twelve members appointed by History Nebraska members and only three members appointed by the Governor. The members also appoint their own director. Making matters even more convoluted is the fact that each member can accept gifts on behalf of the agency and the History Nebraska Foundation operates independently from the State. So, when monies were deposited into an account for the History Nebraska Foundation, a red flag automatically went up at the State Auditor’s office.

I introduced LB 1169 to fix these many problems with History Nebraska. First, the bill makes History Nebraska a code agency, instead of merely being a state agency with loose ties to the State. This is accomplished by having the Governor appoint the director, at the approval of the Legislature. The director would run the agency’s operations and finances and serve at the pleasure of the Governor. The director would be forbidden to serve on the board of any other organization which makes contributions to History Nebraska. Consequently, the director would be held accountable to the Governor for all of the operations and actions taken by the Society.

The bill diminishes the role of the members of the board of trustees. The director would no longer take orders or directions from the board of trustees. Instead, the board of trustees would merely take on an advisory role with the director.

The bill puts strict limitations on how History Nebraska can accept gifts. The bill strips the members of the board of trustees of their authority to accept any gifts on behalf of the agency. Only the director would be allowed to accept gifts, provided that the gift is under $10,000. Gifts of money and real estate valued over $10,000 would require the approval of the Governor.

The bill creates financial transparency for the Society. All deposits would be made through the State Treasurer. Each year the director would hold an annual meeting and prepare an annual report. The director would prepare a financial report of all of the agency’s transactions for the year. The report would include the dissemination of any materials sold or disposed of by the Society.

Finally, the bill reestablishes the Nebraska State Historical Society Collections Trust Fund. However, the fund would be administered by the director and the proceeds from any materials sold by the agency would be deposited by the State Treasurer into the fund. Furthermore, revenues in the fund would be invested as per the Nebraska Capital Expansion Act and the Nebraska State Funds Investment Act.

I share these things with you today because Nebraskans need to know how their hard-earned money is being spent by the State of Nebraska. The State of Nebraska can no longer afford to spend money frivolously. Corrupt and reckless financial practices by state agencies must be reined in. LB 1169 seeks to accomplish that objective. A public hearing will be held on LB 1169 at the State Capitol on February 1; however; members of the public can write online comments about the bill through the Legislature’s website at: www.nebraskalegislature.gov.

Last Thursday Gov. Jim Pillen delivered his State of the State address to the Unicameral Legislature. The primary focus of the speech was devoted to tax relief, especially property tax relief. So, I listened closely to hear his plans for tax relief. Although he vows to reduce property taxes by 40 percent, he never offered any kind of substantive plan for doing so. Gov. Pillen’s plan continues several of the same stale practices which have never worked in the past, such as creating more property tax credits for businesses and transferring more revenues into the state’s property tax cash-credit fund. Gov. Pillen is even pinning his hopes for income tax relief on a 3.9 percent income tax rate…coming in the year 2027! The Governor’s tax plan amounts to nothing more than slight of hand tactics to fool the public into believing that meaningful and significant tax relief is on its way.

January 17 was the last day for State Senators to introduce new bills. Sadly, none of the new bills offer meaningful and significant tax relief for Nebraskans. The best legislative proposal was offered by Sen. Brad von Gillern of Elkhorn. His bill, LB 1241, would require political subdivisions to reduce their property tax levies by the same percentage of increase in property valuations. The result would be no increases in property taxes, but no reduction in property taxes, either.

Sen. Lou Anne Linehan also of Elkhorn is chair of the Legislature’s revenue committee. Sen. Linehan introduced LB 1315, a bill for an increase in the state sales tax rate. Sen. Linehan’s legislative plan is to raise the state sales tax from 5.5 percent to 6.5 percent with 2.75 percent of the revenues being earmarked for Nebraska’s Good Life districts. Her hope is that by appropriating some $500 million to economic development efforts, we can eventually reduce property taxes.

Several new bills were introduced to raise more sales tax revenues for the State. Several State Senators introduced bills to eliminate various sales tax exemptions. Sen. Fred Meyer of St. Paul introduced LB 1311, which would remove the sales tax exemption for pet, storage, and moving services. Sen. Linehan introduced LB 1319 to eliminate the sales tax exemption for data centers. Sen. Von Gillern introduced LB 1308 to repeal the sales tax exemption for accounting services and ag services, and Sen. Justin Wayne of Omaha introduced LB 1345 to remove the sales tax exemption for legal services. What each of these bills have in common is generating more sales tax revenue for the State.

What all of these new tax plans have in common is that none of them cut taxes. The fact of the matter is that the Governor, the chair of the Legislature’s revenue committee, and the other members of the Unicameral Legislature have no viable plans to reduce the overall tax burden of Nebraskans this year. All that has been offered up this year amounts to nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Much like the Wizard of Oz, those behind the curtain are unable to solve Nebraska’s tax problems. Nebraska’s tax system is broken, it cannot be repaired, and all of the new legislation proposed this year only further verifies this fact.

To further show how broken our tax system is, consider Sen. Linehan’s bill LB 1317. The entire text of LB 1317 states succinctly that: “1) Property taxes are too high; and 2) Legislative changes to lower property taxes are needed and desired.” That’s it! LB 1317 is known as a shell bill. Sen. Linehan introduced the bill in this way so that she can hopefully amend it mid-session with some kind of meaningful property tax relief plan. However, if she already knew how to reduce property taxes, she would not need a shell bill to amend later in the session.

I share these things today to show readers how broken our tax system really is and how the Governor and the Unicameral Legislature are unable to fix it. The EPIC Option Consumption Tax bill that I introduced last year with my personal priority designation, continues to be ignored and continues to be the only viable option for meaningful and significant tax relief. The EPIC Option Consumption Tax is the only option currently on the table with a workable model and endorsements by some of our nation’s leading economists, such as Art Laffer, Stephen Moore and Nebraska’s own Ernie Goss.

Without the EPIC Option Consumption Tax, Nebraska will continue to flounder as one of our nation’s worst tax states. According to the Tax Foundation Nebraska is the 38th worst tax state in America for its overall tax burden and is the 40th worst state for property taxes. We are worse than all of our surrounding states, but the EPIC Option Consumption Tax would propel us to the front of the line and make us the most tax friendly state in America. When I ran for office eight years ago, I vowed to offer Nebraskans meaningful and significant tax relief, especially property tax relief. The EPIC Option Consumption Tax remains the best legislative option for accomplishing that goal. Please visit our website at www.epicoption.org.

When I first arrived in the Nebraska Legislature in 2017, Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha stood in front of me on the legislative floor. He turned around and gave me some good advice. He told me to learn the rules. I began to read the rules. Upon doing so, I quickly learned how confusing the Rule Book of the Nebraska Legislature was. So, immediately upon adjournment last year, I turned my attention to re-writing the Rule Book.

The project of re-writing the Rule Book of the Legislature focused primarily on two tasks. The first task was to rearrange the material in the Rule Book so that the rules for each stage of debate could be found in a single rule. The second task was to develop a separate rule for how the Legislature would go about debating and passing proposals for changes to the Rule Book. After working with a committee of eight staffers, what resulted was a much more user-friendly and more complete re-write of the Rule Book of nearly 100 pages. The most important rule change that the Legislature could pass this year is this complete re-write of the whole Rule Book.

I have served on the Rules Committee of the Nebraska Legislature ever since I first arrived back in 2017. I have never seen the rules become more convoluted than what they have been for the last couple of years. Last year we had 57 proposed rule changes presented to the Rules Committee. This year we toned it down to 34 proposed rule changes.

Last week the Legislature began the process of making rule changes. The Rules Committee held a very efficient public hearing on these 34 newly proposed rule changes, then the Rules Committee met in an executive session for five hours to deliberate over the proposed rule changes. The members of the Rules Committee engaged in a full, fair, and robust debate over the rules. We did not always agree, but the spirit in the room was always very congenial, cordial and to the point. I very much appreciated that the members of the Rules Committee could disagree without being disagreeable.

This year the Legislature will allow time up until the twelfth legislative day for deliberating over the rules. Back in 2017 the Legislature spent nearly 40 days debating rule changes, and that was inappropriate. This is why I wrote a separate rule for how to debate the rules. Nevertheless, the Rules Committee combined several rule changes and redacted others in order to present a package of rule changes that will make the legislative process more efficient.

The Legislature cannot duplicate what occurred in 2023. When I am out visiting with constituents, two subjects invariably come up. The first is usually taxes. The second is rule changes. It surprised me to learn how many people across our state watch the Legislature. The people of Nebraska sent their state senators to Lincoln to do the business of the state. That did not happen last year. While some may argue that the Legislature passed a lot of bills last year, that is not my concern. My goal is not to just pass legislation; my goal is to pass the kind of legislation that makes sense. Passing 31 bills through a Christmas tree bill with a single vote is not the right way to make laws.

The Legislature needs to learn how to work more efficiently. Introducing 850 bills in a single year and holding hearings on each bill is not the most efficient way of doing business. So, the day may be coming when state senators will be limited in the number of bills they introduce and not every bill necessarily deserves a public hearing. The bottom line, though, is that unless the Legislature can figure out how to become more efficient, we will continue to get what we have been getting.

Some people wonder why I am so interested in changing the rules during my final year in the Nebraska Legislature. The reason is the same as when I planted a tree at the age of 70. I may never get the chance to enjoy the shade from that tree, but my grandchildren will. Therefore, my intention is to leave the State Legislature in a better place than how I found it when I first arrived. That means that the rules should be changed such that state senators can disagree without becoming disagreeable, and that the majority can continue to rule while respecting the will of the minority.

The 2024 Legislative session has begun. Because the Unicameral Legislature operates in a two-year cycle, this will be the second session of the 108th Legislature. The session began on January 3 and will end on April 18. Since this is only a 60-day session, there will be less time for State Senators to get the business of the State done this year. Today I will share my priorities and goals for making this year’s legislative session a productive one.

I am the chair of the Legislature’s Rules Committee. Because of the chaos of last year’s session, some necessary rule changes need to be made at the beginning of this year’s session. I intend to leave the Legislature better off than the way I found it seven years ago. Because the Legislature’s Rule Book is not very user-friendly, first-year Senators often have a difficult time learning the rules. Therefore, one of the rule changes I have proposed constitutes a complete re-write and re-organization of the Rule Book; otherwise, I have proposed 11 other rules changes which are needed. Altogether State Senators have proposed a total of 34 rule changes.

While rule changes will have to represent my most immediate priority in the Legislature, my highest concern will continue to be for tax relief. The EPIC Option Consumption Tax bill that I introduced last year will carryover for 2024 and will continue to offer the best solution for our State’s broken tax system.

The time has come for Nebraska’s politicians to admit that we need the EPIC Option Consumption Tax. Last week Gov. Jim Pillen contradicted himself when he criticized the EPIC Option Consumption Tax, claiming that it would somehow hurt low-income families. Soon thereafter he announced his desire to raise the state sales tax by two percent, matching the EPIC Option Consumption Tax Rate of 7.5 percent. So, Gov. Pillen’s tax plan would retain the state income tax, the property tax, and the inheritance tax, whereas my plan would eliminate those taxes. Furthermore, Gov. Pillen’s plan would continue to tax used goods, which are important to low-income families, whereas the EPIC Option Consumption Tax would not. So, the EPIC Option Consumption Tax is far more friendly to low-income families than the Governor’s tax plan.

This year I will introduce several new bills. The first one is a detasseling bill. Nebraska is now the only state remaining which utilizes local teenagers for doing rogueing and detasseling work. Those jobs are being threatened by companies that only hire migrant workers. Because these jobs are important for introducing the youth of our state to agriculture, my bill will create transparency for holding seed companies accountable, who are already required by law to hire local workers first.

Another bill that I will introduce is a new school choice bill. This bill is an update to the My Student, My Choice Act that I introduced last year. This bill offers real school choice. The bill would fully fund public school students while providing about $8,000 for each student enrolled in a private school.

I may also introduce a bill to end C02 sequestration in our state. I was the only Senator who voted against LB 650 in 2021. Since that bill passed two years ago, State Senators have been learning about the dangers of pumping carbon dioxide through pipelines and storing it underground. It appears that CO2 travels most efficiently through pipelines with pressure set at 2,600 pounds per square inch (psi), but the pipelines which are designed for natural gas pump it with pressures that never exceed 1,200 psi. Pumping C02 through these pipelines could be very dangerous. Therefore, the Legislature needs to repeal the Nebraska Geologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide Act.

Finally, I plan to Introduce a bill to make the Nebraska State Historical Society a state agency. This is necessary due to the conflicts of interests that some of the board members have who oversee the organization as well as their need to be able to account for the state monies they receive.

State Senators have until January 17 to introduce new bills. Many of the concerns I have for our state are being addressed by other State Senators, so there is no need to duplicate their efforts. Issues such as election integrity, preventing the sale of Nebraska’s lands to foreign enemies, and enabling capital punishment are all issues that will get addressed this year. Overall, it is my sincere hope, plan, and desire to make this year’s session a very productive one.

The Biden administration continues to enforce failing policies concerning oil and gas which are now beginning to affect the State of Nebraska. The Biden administration’s war against global warming and its war against the use of oil and gas are both misguided and wrong. So, today I would like to explain why this is the case and how it is affecting our state.

President Biden likes to brag how oil production in the U.S. is the same today as it was under Trump. Well, that is not exactly true. At its height under Trump, the U.S. produced 13 million barrels of oil per day which is the same amount that was produced in July 2023, according to the latest U.S. data available. So, Biden is producing as much oil as Trump. However, according to a new study by the Committee to Unleash Prosperity, the Biden administration’s anti-energy policies of investing only with ESG companies, escalating business taxes, and new regulations on the oil and gas industry have resulted in an estimated loss of some 2 million barrels of oil per day compared to what it would have been under Trump. This loss in oil production results in an annual reduction in GDP of about $100 billion per year.

The situation gets worse. The anti-oil and gas drilling policies of the Biden administration are actually increasing pollution, not decreasing it. Under Trump, the U.S. had become energy independent. To the contrary, in 2022 under the Biden administration the U.S. imported 8.3 million barrels of oil per day from other countries. One million of those barrels came from the Persian Gulf. According to the Energy Information Administration, an oil tanker’s one-way trip from Saudi Arabia via the Suez Canal can take anywhere between 31-51 days and burn up to 2.5 million gallons of fuel. Burning that much dirty fuel is a major cause of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

The situation gets even worse. Making matters exponentially worse is the fact that Houthi militants in Yemen have now choked off the entrance to the Suez Canal. As a result, container ships and oil tankers are now being rerouted around the Horn of Africa and around the African continent through Cape Agulhas, making the trip to America significantly longer. Considering that a single container ship can emit four times more sulfer oxide than 50 million cars and in 2022 alone 214 cruise ships emitted four times more sulfur oxide than one billion cars, I believe we can safely conclude that the Biden administration’s anti-oil and gas policy has failed to achieve its desired goal of reducing pollution and greenhouse gases.

This kind of twisted thinking about global warming has now come to Nebraska. A research team from the University of Nebraska just received a $5 million grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to study methane gasses produced by cows. That’s right: cattle belching! The goal of the study is to discover new ways to reduce intestinal methane emissions from ruminant animals in an attempt to curb global warming, and it’s all part of the Biden administration’s 2021 pledge to reduce methane gas emissions.

This kind of study is both misguided as well as a waste of taxpayer monies. Cattle belching plays an insignificant role when it comes to methane gas emissions. When the global warming activists tell you that cattle belching is responsible for 14-18 percent of all methane gas emissions, what they are hiding is the fact that transportation costs are included in their calculations. Exhaust fumes from trucks and machinery, which account for 28 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions are rolled into those numbers. So, cattle belching is not the real culprit.

When Frank Mitloehner, a professor of animal science at the University of California Davis, was asked about bovine belching, he admitted that cows were not the real culprit. Mitloehner said, “For those who say cows contribute the most greenhouse gas emissions, that’s simply not true.” Mitloehner went on to explain that the use of fossil fuels for transportation is a much bigger problem.

So, the bottom line is that researchers at UNL will soon be using your hard-earned tax dollars to study a problem that doesn’t really exist. It seems to me that UNL researchers need to figure out what the real issues are and what they should be working on. I can’t wait to see their recommendation on how we are supposed to prevent methane gas coming from cows. Happy New Year!

One of the words we often hear around Christmas time is the word ‘noel,’ which simply refers to the birth of Christ. One of the songs we sing at Christmas time is called The First Noel. That song tells the story of Christ’s birth and the events that followed it. The birth of Christ is the real reason why we celebrate Christmas.

The lyrics of the First Noel can teach us many things about giving this time of year. For example, the first ones to hear the good news of Christ’s birth were poor shepherds. Please understand that I am not the one calling these shepherds ‘poor’ nor am I making a blanket statement about all people who tend sheep for a living. I was the Sheep Superintendent for 25 years! Instead, the words “poor shepherds” are part of the lyrics of the song. Nevertheless, shepherding in biblical times was hardly a rich man’s job.

That these shepherds were poor is significant because it shows God’s care and concern for all human beings. Christmas is for everyone. Christmas is not about getting rich or flashing one’s wealth or spending a lot of money on gifts; instead, it is a time for recognizing the birth of Christ and including everyone we know in that celebration, especially those who may be less fortunate.

The song goes on to tell the story of the magi who came from the East to worship the Christ child. These men came with great wealth, but the kind of gifts they gave to the baby Jesus may seem a bit odd at first until you understand their true meaning. These three gifts were personalized for who Jesus really was. They gave him gold, frankincense and myrrh. Gold is a gift fit for a king; frankincense was something only a priest could use, and myrrh was a burial ointment. So, the magi worshiped the baby Jesus by honoring him as a king, as a priest, and as the Savior of the world who would have to die as an atoning sacrifice for sins.

Like the magi, Christmas is about giving, and personalized gifts are always much more meaningful than extravagance and expense alone. Finding that perfect gift for someone you love can be a challenge, but once you find it, it communicates an intimate kind of love which money alone cannot buy. Giving a personalized gift values the person receiving it for who they really are. God has created each one of us so uniquely that even identical twins, who share the same DNA, have their own identity, their own personality, and their own tastes for what they like and dislike.

Finally, I would like to remind you that every good gift ultimately comes from above. God took the initiative at the first Christmas to send us the man who would become the Savior of the world. So, as we enjoy the spoils of Christmas this year, let us not forget the One who has blessed us, and may we always remember why Christ had to be born. I truly wish for you and your family to have a merry Christmas this year!

“Wow!” “Amazing!” “Unbelievable!” These are the kinds of expressions that come to my mind whenever I hear about the current efforts to defeat the petition drive to put the EPIC Option Consumption Tax on the ballot for 2024. The EPIC Option Consumption Tax is the fix for our broken tax system, and those who oppose putting it on the ballot are undermining the right of the citizens to make that choice for themselves.

Two years ago, I was visited by a couple of nationally acclaimed economists. The names of those two economists were Art Laffer and Steven Moore. They came to my office in Lincoln in order to get a complete understanding of my idea for a consumption tax. After analyzing the proposal, both men said they were one hundred percent behind what I was trying to do.

Art Laffer especially warned me that there would be overwhelming opposition to my consumption tax proposal. He told me that the opposition would come primarily from those who currently collect and spend Nebraska’s tax dollars as well as those who prefer a tax system where government entities can pick winners and losers. He also said that all of the unions would oppose the idea. Laffer was right!

The list of those organizations who now openly oppose the EPIC Option Consumption Tax perfectly matches what Laffer predicted two years ago. Laffer knew that these organizations would oppose the idea of a consumption tax because they are the same kinds of organizations who opposed him during the 1970’s when he put Proposition 13 on the ballot in California. Proposition 13 capped California’s property tax at one percent, but it did not eliminate their property tax altogether. Because the EPIC Option Consumption Tax eliminates four taxes, he predicted that the opposition would be overwhelming, and he was right.

The list of organizations opposing the EPIC Option Consumption Tax creates the most peculiar pairing of alliances I have ever seen in Nebraska politics. Last week a reporter told me that I had done something never seen before. So, I asked him what that was? He responded by saying that I have brought together the liberal, progressive think tank known as the Open Sky Institute in partnership with the conservative think tank known as the Platte Institute, and the rural farm organizations, such as the Farm Bureau, are now working in tandem with the urban organizations, such as the League of Municipalities, and the Nebraska Realtors Association is now aligning on the same side with those government subdivisions who have the authority to raise property tax levies.

No matter the organization, what all of these organizations who oppose the EPIC Option Consumption Tax have in common is that they are misinformed about it. What has become clearly evident to me is that these organizations have never read the bill, they have never paid for or done their own dynamic study of it, and they have never contacted me or anyone else on our team to get their questions answered.

Truth does not matter to these organizations. Instead of investigating the truth, they continue to spread information from a bogus study done by the Open Sky Institute three years ago on a completely different bill which said that a consumption tax in Nebraska would require a rate of 15 to 22 percent, or perhaps they perform their own fallacious calculations on the back of a napkin. The truth of the matter is that the only objective, dynamic study ever done on the EPIC Option Consumption Tax is the one released in February of this year by the Beacon Hill Institute, and that study said that the rate could be as low as 7.23 percent and still supply the State of Nebraska will all of its revenue needs.

So, let me close with some good news. The petition drive to put the EPIC Option Consumption Tax on the ballot for 2024 is gaining more and more momentum every day. Not only is this apparent by the organizations who oppose it, but it is also evident by the progress our team is making. We have hired a professional circulating group called Trailblazing Canvassers to help us collect the required number of signatures. In addition, we have more than 160 volunteers who are collecting signatures statewide.

The main group that our opponents have overlooked is You – the taxpayer. Many of you have signed the petition and have donated money to the petition drive. The Independent Cattlemen of Nebraska and those behind the Convention of the States movement have been essential to this effort. I have not forgotten Nebraska’s taxpayers and I will continue to pursue tax relief until we make Nebraska the most tax friendly state in America.

The COVID-19 pandemic is over. It has been over for quite some time, and now we are beginning to see what kind of damage some of our bad government decisions have done to our economy, to our society, and to our workforce. The government shutdowns that occurred during the days of the pandemic have done more to harm the United States of America than any other emergency situation since 9/11 some 22 years ago. Historians will likely remember the COVID-19 pandemic as the most important and significant catastrophic economic event of the first half of the 21st Century.

Gov. Jim Pillen has now been placed in the very awkward position of having to deal with the aftermath of these poor government policies of which he never played a part. Gov. Pillen now has to put the pieces of a puzzle back together that he never took apart. So, on November 11 Gov. Pillen began the process by making the hard decision to issue an executive order calling all state employees back to the office by January 2. So, no more working from home.

Without skipping a heart beat the state employee’s union rode in like the cavalry to save the day for all of the state employees and made an immediate demand for negotiations. Soon after Gov. Pillen made his executive order, a press release went out by the Nebraska Association of Public Employees (NAPE), appealing to their contract with the State. NAPE demanded that any “changes in working terms and conditions are mandatory subjects for bargaining and cannot be imposed without first negotiating with the union.” Unions always know what’s best, right?

Many Nebraska state employees don’t realize how good they have it. In January of this year NAPE negotiated the highest pay increase for state employees in 35 years. In addition to their good rate of pay, state employees all get 13 paid holidays every year plus vacation time. They also get superior medical, dental and retirement benefits. They travel in state vehicles, never pay for their own gas when traveling for the state, and get to stay in high end motels on the state’s dime.

Certain problems naturally arise whenever state employees are allowed to work from home. When state offices are not being manned, others suddenly find that they cannot readily get the information, the documents, or the services they need to effectively do their job. One elected official I know needed information for an important decision that needed to be made but couldn’t get it in time because the state employee was working from home.

Certain temptations also creep up when state employees are allowed to work from home. One such temptation is to moonlight on the job. Nobody who draws a paycheck from the state should be working a second job during regular business hours. Another person I know purchased merchandise through an online marketplace, but when he went to pick it up, he discovered that the person selling the item was a state employee working from home.

Many of the arguments I’ve heard in support of working from home don’t make much sense to me. One such argument has to do with the lack of available office space. Try telling that to the residents of Sidney, where the old Cabela’s office complex continues to sit empty year after year. There is no good reason why state agencies, such as the Game & Parks Commission, should have to continue working in Lincoln, which is far away from where their problems lie. Nebraska has plenty of office space.

Some argue that they would have to make certain adjustments in order to return to the office, such as paying for daycare or buying a car so they can commute to work. These are commonplace problems that most people in the workforce have to deal with. There is nothing new or unique about these kinds of problems. In the long run the State may find that it can get more done with fewer people.

Have you heard about the new contract extension for the University of Nebraska’s Athletic Director? If you haven’t, you might get a little overwhelmed by the numbers. I was surprised by the tremendous increase in salary plus the guarantee of future bonuses.

Trev Alberts is a former UNL football player who now serves as the Athletic Director at UNL. According to his new contract extension, his annual base salary will go up from $800,000 to $1.7 million, and it will increase again to $2.1 million in 2026, according to a news release from the University of Nebraska system.

Alberts will be paid a $500,000 retention bonus if he stays through September 2025, with an annual $300,000 retention bonus every following year thereafter, if he stays. Then, he will receive an additional $3 million bonus if he completes his entire eight-year contract. The agreement is aimed at keeping Alberts at UNL through 2031. If Alberts completes the contract, he will receive a total of $5.3 million In retention bonusses, $3 million for staying until 2031, and $16 million if his salary doesn’t increase above the $2.1 million in 2026. So, he is guaranteed to receive a minimum of $24.3 million.

This contract extension was agreed to at a time when UNL is making some very serious budget cuts. The University of Nebraska system is currently facing a $58 million shortfall by the year 2025. So, last week UNL announced that the school will be eliminating 50 staff positions, closing all of the open faculty positions, and reducing funding for graduate and student workers due to that school’s $12 million budget shortfall.

Similar cuts have been scheduled to take place at the University of Nebraska at Kearney. UNK will downsize their faculty by 24.5 positions, and eliminate nine degree programs, including theater, recreation management, and geography, in order to make up for that school’s $4.3 million deficit. Similar cuts may soon be coming for UNO and the University of Nebraska Medical Center.

Funding for the athletic department runs separately from funding for the academic programs at the University of Nebraska system. I do not need to be reminded of that fact. However, it is my understanding that the athletic department has been transferring up to $10 million annually to the university’s general fund. Contract extensions like this one could cut into that money or eliminate it altogether.

Contract extensions like the one given to Trev Alberts could become a problem going forward. I find it interesting that this contract was negotiated and put into place by President Ted Carter, who will be leaving soon for the Ohio State University. While he negotiated this exorbitant contract extension, he will not be sticking around to pay for it.

I remember a time many years ago when head football coach, Tom Osborne, was offered a pay raise. Coach Osborne refused the raise. He declined it because he said the expectation of that kind of a contract would send a wrong message about what the University of Nebraska system stands for and what it values. So, the question now needs to be asked: What message does this kind of a contract extension send to the students and families who may have to pay higher tuition or who may have to travel out of state to attend another college or university that offers a degree program for their major.

I serve on the Appropriations Committee of the State Legislature and I will keep these kinds of questions and concerns in mind when the University of Nebraska comes before our committee asking for more money.