Lincoln Journal Star. May 9, 2024.
Editorial: Pillen’s job cut plan will face its challenges
Days after the Legislature failed to approve his property tax relief plan that in its earliest incarnation would have raised the state sales tax by 2 cents, Gov. Jim Pillen issued an executive order that would eliminate up to 1,000 state government jobs to provide about $40 million in property tax relief.
That plan is as problematic as the proposal that was rejected by the Legislature that had little public support. And it appears it is just as unlikely to be implemented.
The issue isn’t whether Pillen can or can’t eliminate the jobs that have remained open for 90 days or more.
But reallocating the estimated $39.5 million to $49 million in savings from the job cuts may be unconstitutional.
“Governors cannot appropriate no matter how much they want to,” Lincoln Sen. Danielle Conrad told the Journal Star. “There’s no ability for the governor to take an appropriation and simply shift it over to a property tax relief fund. That’s not legally permissible.”
Because the constitution puts the allocation of state revenue solely with the legislative branch, moving the cash to property tax relief would have to be done by the Legislature.
That, Conrad said, was the process that occurred when Pillen wanted to recapture unused cash funds from various state agencies. The Legislature held a hearing and gave three rounds of approval to that effort this year.
The cuts themselves are troubling as well.
While Pillen says he’s running state government like a business — his point about efficiency is fair, but the analogy gets weaker after that — no smartly managed enterprise would slash every job that has been open for 90 days or more with the justification that “we have proven we can work without them.”
Rather, those cuts at a business would be done on a position-by-position basis strategically because some vacancies can take months to fill — the state’s public employees union estimates that 1 in 5 of the jobs are open pending a qualified employee — and others are critical to the functioning of the enterprise, in this case, each of the agencies that have been hit by the cuts.
From a purely management standpoint, when vacant positions become lost positions, supervisors become hesitant to manage performance, since a person doing even subpar work is often better than no person at all.
Pillen’s executive order is certain to have a negative impact on some state services. There is a lengthy list of exempted positions including: law enforcement and corrections officers, firefighters, children and family service specialists, highway maintenance and construction workers, legislative and court staff, executive branch staffers, including those working for the governor, and positions at the Public Service Commission, University of Nebraska, state colleges and the Department of Education.
But the cuts will be felt by Nebraskans who interact with the state government. Standing in longer lines at the Department of Motor Vehicles? Blame the cuts. Increased hold times when applying for Medicaid? A slowdown in the delivery of unemployment services? Again, blame the cuts.
Pillen is trying to deliver on his promise to lower property taxes, but this method appears to skirt the legislative process, so it’s likely that Nebraskans will feel the pain of the cuts long before property owners ever reap any benefits of reduced state spending.
___
McCook Gazette. May 7, 2024.
Editorial: Marijuana reclassification can lead to positive change
Marijuana’s potential reclassification from Schedule I to Schedule III by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration marks a significant step toward acknowledging its medical benefits while maintaining regulatory control. While this move promises to ease restrictions on research and alleviate tax burdens for legal cannabis businesses, it also prompts a necessary dialogue on the broader implications, particularly regarding the potential for increased drug use.
Firstly, the shift in classification underscores a growing recognition of marijuana’s therapeutic potential. By acknowledging its medical uses, this proposal opens doors for more rigorous scientific research, facilitating a deeper understanding of its benefits and risks. Currently, marijuana’s Schedule I status poses significant barriers to conducting clinical studies, hindering progress in unlocking its full therapeutic potential. Rescheduling to Schedule III would offer researchers greater flexibility, paving the way for more evidence-based medical treatments involving cannabis-derived compounds.
Furthermore, the proposed reclassification holds economic implications, particularly for legal cannabis businesses burdened by excessive taxes. Under current regulations, these businesses face exorbitant tax rates due to the federal prohibition on marijuana. By shifting marijuana to Schedule III, such businesses would gain tax relief, leveling the playing field and bolstering the legitimacy of state-licensed programs. This not only promotes economic growth but also enhances regulatory compliance, mitigating the influence of illicit markets.
However, amidst these advancements, it’s crucial to approach the issue with caution, particularly regarding the potential for increased drug use. While recognizing marijuana’s medical benefits, we must remain vigilant against the normalization of recreational use, especially among vulnerable populations. Critics rightfully caution against complacency, emphasizing the need for comprehensive drug education and harm reduction strategies to mitigate potential risks associated with increased accessibility.
Moreover, the proposed reclassification falls short of addressing broader disparities in drug policy, particularly concerning racial justice and equity. As the debate continues, it’s imperative to center discussions on addressing the disproportionate impact of drug enforcement on communities of color. Merely shifting marijuana to a different schedule does not adequately address the systemic injustices perpetuated by decades of prohibition.
In essence, while the potential reclassification of marijuana heralds a significant milestone in drug policy reform, it must be accompanied by comprehensive measures to ensure responsible use, mitigate potential harms, and address underlying social inequities. By striking a balance between recognizing medical benefits and safeguarding public health, we can navigate this paradigm shift toward a more nuanced and equitable approach to marijuana regulation.
As the proposal undergoes review and public scrutiny, it’s imperative to engage in constructive dialogue, incorporating diverse perspectives to shape policies that reflect the evolving landscape of marijuana regulation in the United States.
END