2005
Week 17
April 29, 2005

Hi

New phrase on the floor: "elitist stupidity."

Words are complex and thereby fun. "Elitist" I assume would refer to someone with unusual credentials: political, academic, or possibly fancy famous. Such persons have as much right as anyone to be stupid and some would have special talents for it if they are isolated by their gifts or parochial by their interests.

"Stupidity" does not usually mean dumb. More likely, we are referring to someone who is quite bright but just does not get it. My question is: why attach "elitist" unless you are inclined to pull down prominent persons? A valid point would be that the brightest should not be assumed to have 100% wisdom. An invalid point would be to cut down the field of leaders to (my) common level.

The best speech of the week: by Senator Kopplin of Gretna. Gail is a retired superintendent of schools, quiet in voice and manners, with broad experience and great wisdom. He surprises you, which I like. Recently he poetically described the pleasures of fishing, from a colorful dawn with gentle quiet time, to the blending of color, mist and personal reflection at the end of the day.

This week, the subject on the floor was how to regulate sales of common cold remedies which can be used to cook meth. Several spoke of and we all feel the horrors of this scourge which is ruining families, filling our jails, permanently changing personalities through the destruction of parts of the brain and robbing young persons of their futures. The proposal includes a log at all drug counters to register every person who buys pseudoephedrine over the counter (prescriptions are not included). We each feel like we have to do something, even if it is only a partial answer.

Senator Kopplin said in effect that he had decided he would not agree to any government registry that was not essential. We have done that too many times, taking DNA samples from persons who are not suspects but who will be if they do not submit to the sample, sharing our identity in places where it is not respected, compromising our sense of freedom by quietly fitting in with the crowd in order to get along. If the bill has a log he will not vote for it, even though we are anxious.

My, that brought a flood of thoughts. I remember a military officer coming to my home in the McCarthy years, to check on my sermons. He was more nervous than I but I can assure you his visit was chilling to a pastor who felt 100% loyal to his country. I remember openly protesting the nuclear weapons buildup, when we had enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world 20 times over. The World-Herald caustically described us as unpatriotic and seeking to hurt our country. I remember the anxiety of protesting the curbing of freedom by government edicts in the 80's. To be complete, I also remember my congregation in each of these situations standing with me, unflinching. I decided I will vote against registering on a log at the drugstore. No one is free. That would be chaos. However, there is a line in demanding conformance to the community and we must continuously define it.

The big news of the week came after we adjourned. The Forecast Board decided we will be plus $80 million over the three-year revenue projection. Remember, that is $80 per taxpayer, so don't get too party-happy. It is plus $40 for the current year, plus $20 for the year starting in July, and plus $20 for the year following. I am quoted all over the place today since I was the only senator in sight when the reporters were rushing out of the session, and was still in the office when the radio reporters were calling in. We had adjourned at noon and I was clearing back work until an evening appointment with Ruth.

Back to the skinny on all this. Reports get confusing unless you have the cash framework in mind. If you do not like to think about cash and budgets, skip to the end and have a good day. For those who want to know what the press is talking about, I will put it very simply.

The tricky language comes from three pots of cash we use to handle cash flow and emergencies. 1. General Fund balance, which is like your check book balance. 2. Cash Reserve, which is like your savings account balance. 3. Minimum Reserve, which is money that is in the budget as cash.

Cash Reserve: at the end of June each year we are required to transfer to reserve any revenue which was above expectation. The $40 million noted above is an automatic transfer and we will try not to spend it. I would like our reserve to be $500 million, which is two month's expense. The $40 will put it at $200 m., which is a nice gain.

Minimum Reserve: we must over-budget for our two year budget, by 3%. So one budget item is simply cash. For the coming year, that figure is $90 million. We can spend it after the budget cycle begins, so you may see reports such as we are $20 million under reserve when we have $70 million remaining in the budget as reserve cash.

So, the new budget. Our proposal is $300 million for the coming year. That sets us up to have $22 m. "surplus" in two years. With an extra $20 m. per year in the forecast, our figures will change to $62 million above expenses by the end of June, 2007. Not too long ago we had a status sheet with a minus $162 million, so you can understand the smiles.

With some extra cash dangling from the ceiling there will be all sorts of amendments to reach for that. Our budget committee turned back over $300 million in solid requests, so that is not surprising. We on the committee will try to hold the line on budget. A big piece, which we did not consider because it is a reduction of income rather than an expense, is tax incentives for new and expanding business. We return sales taxes, for example, that were an increase because of a designated new business. Without the new business we would not have more tax, so it is not an actual cost. However, the reduced income does eventually impact the budget so we have to be careful. There is also a big tax reduction in the proposals -- to stop collecting sales tax on business equipment. It helps business and boosts economic development, but would cost us $24 million over the next two years.

There is the new number crunch. You can see that without the additional $40 million put in by our forecasters the tax incentive interests are quite limited. Now we will see how nervous the legislature is on scanning the future.

Peering into the future.

Lowen