2006
Week 13
March 31, 2006

Hi

Whoopee! Three bills require the most attention from me. All three came up this week and passed the first round. Unreal.

One greatly increases DUI penalties, one changes the present requirement that the Liquor Control Commission must issue a liquor license to any new applicant who can walk and chew gum at the same time, and the third will allow our high school graduates who are not citizens to choose that route and qualify as residents for higher ed tuition.

The third bill is a bit moot, as Nebraska law says that anyone who has lived in the state, in an established home, for half a year is a resident. However, it brings much emotion, since we all resist support for law breakers. As in every emotional issue, our vocabulary adds to the problem and compromises the discussion. These students are NOT breaking a law, nor is it likely that they have ever done so. Their parents broke an entry law several years ago, but also are not now breaking a law by living here. (The Feds tell us that.)

Hopefully, the Feds will straighten this out, since it is their quagmire. We have in writing that they will make no attempt to enforce employer laws. Also, they issue a form of worker's permit for doctors, but not for meat packers. Ridiculous. A Hispanic attorney told me that a worker's card would be honored. The immigrants would welcome the requirement to go back home every two years, for example, as long as they can apply to work again.

Our attempt to define the conditions for recall of an official is having difficulty, but I do enjoy the three proposed standards: malfeasance (unlawful act), misfeasance (neglect of duty) and nonfeasance (failure to perform). Sounds like the three stooges if you say it fast.

Two more notes on "tax cuts." The list of tax cuts included a change of ag land valuation from 80% to 75% of actual value. That is not a tax cut any more than it is a tax increase. But we do not ever say "increase." A tax shift, which is what most tax cut is, always includes a tax increase. In this case, the tax budgets do not go down. They stay the same. So if ag land has a slightly smaller tax load the tax load in town goes up to compensate for the reduction.

One of our senators said in debate that his ag land was valued at 74.2%, so he would not be helped. First, though he is within .2% of the lowest limit, I would not say that figure out loud, on the floor. Second, if the county assessor thinks that way, you can be sure ag land owners will receive a 5% reduction in the next calculation.

One of you objected to my calling our present tax cut an "expense." He said it is simply returning a tax payer's money, which rightfully belongs to that payer. That is an interesting point, and one often stated in the political season. He also said politicians will not talk up tax cuts. On the contrary, they love to say they are returning your money. Not accurate. It is not your money after you paid the bill.

When I buy groceries, I pay my money at the checkout counter. I receive goods and pay for them, fair and square. I do not consider coming back ten minutes later, with the other customers, and point to the cash register saying that the cash is our money.

If the owner discovers the competition is selling below cost, she/he will reduce the prices so that we pay less tomorrow. That is not paying us back. It is reducing revenue. His expenses remain the same so he will have to cover them by taking money from savings and transferring it to pay the bills. That transfer is a form of expense, causing a loss of savings. I grant it could be stated the other way, but when we are voting $$$ out of reserves we feel we are paying a bill. The Chairman of Revenue, in introducing the "tax cuts," stated we will have to find the money to pay for this. We clearly are not sending $$$ back to the ones who put the money in the till. (Colorado actually tried that for a while and had a meltdown in several offices.)

In addition, some tax cuts are simply a bill. Homestead Exemption creates a loss to the counties. They bill us for the loss and we make the payment out of general funds.

On the other hand, if cost of service goes down then revenue can go down and we can call it reduced income. You will be relieved to know I am not an accountant. I am an owner, trying to pay the bills. You will be even more relieved I am leaving this topic.

Partially relieved,

Lowen