On the fifth day of the Nebraska Legislature’s new session—it was Jan. 15—Governor Dave Heineman delivered the annual State-of-the-State address. Here’s the summary preface as documented by the Legislative Journal:
"Today, we are operating in a technology-driven, global, free-market economy. Our current tax system needs to be modernized and transformed. It’s been nearly five decades since Nebraska has had a serious debate about our overall tax system. Life has changed drastically since the 1960’s, when we were operating in a completely different economic environment."
The Governor’s proposals for transforming and modernizing the tax system were described conceptually in his speech and released in greater detail three days later. They are being described by the Governor himself, according to media reports, as "bold and courageous." They are not uninteresting or routine, that’s for sure.
Actually, the Governor has alternative proposals. The bolder of the two would completely eliminate the state income tax, for both individuals and corporations. That would cost $2.4 billion in annual revenue. In order to be cost neutral, the proposal also would repeal enough sales-tax exemptions to generate $2.4 billion.
The math is simpler than the policy repercussions. A progressive tax—i.e., based on ability to pay—would be eliminated and a regressive tax would be expanded. (Although one highly regressive impact, taxing grocery purchases, is not part of the plan).
The alternative proposal would be a scaled-back version, eliminating the corporate income tax and exempting a capped amount of retirement income. The lesser cost would be offset by eliminating about $395 million in sales tax exemptions.
The Nebraska Catholic Conference already has noted the fact that the bolder, more extensive proposal—but not the narrower version—would repeal the longstanding sales-tax exemptions for purchases by organizations created exclusively for religious purposes and purchases by non-governmental elementary and secondary schools. (Public schools are political subdivisions, the purchases of which would continue to be exempt. How’s that for fairness?)
Recent public comments attributed to the new Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Greg Adams, mentioned a fundamental premise: the power to tax, ultimately, is the power to control. The context of his remark was quite general, but it offers, in general, a traditional justification for exempting religious organizations from taxation.
The more applied justification for these exemptions is recognition that the ministries and programs of religious organizations, including local church communities throughout the state, contribute remarkably and irreplaceably to the social, spiritual, psychological, educational and material well-being of countless individuals and families. Making these functions more financially difficult for churches and schools would increase the pressures on government to meet human needs. Let the discussion begin.
The tax legislation will be controversial, but by no means the only controversial legislation in this session. Even though only about half of the session’s bills had been introduced as of Jan. 18, bills promising controversy were already apparent.
LB 380, introduced by Senator Sara Howard of Omaha and co-sponsored by Omaha Senators Brad Ashford, Burke Harr and Jeremy Nordquist and Lincoln Senators Bill Avery, Danielle Conrad and Amanda McGill, would legalize co-adoption of children by any two unmarried adults, including same-sex partners. Whether or not it would also coerce licensed adoption agencies into making such placements is open to question.
Similarly, Senator Nordquist’s LB 385 would authorize state placements of foster children with unmarried adults, including same-sex partners. It would do this by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual-orientation, gender identity or marital status, in addition to race, color, religion, gender, disability or national origin.
Under Nebraska law, public school districts have authority to establish and operate school-based health centers in conjunction with sponsoring partners and to collect Medicaid reimbursements for health-care delivered to eligible children. By statutory definition, these centers are prohibited from dispensing, prescribing and counseling for contraceptives. (They also are prohibited from being involved with abortion.) Senator Conrad’s LB 395 would strike the ban insofar as it applies to contraceptives and thereby, apparently, allow public schools to be sources for these drugs and devices.
As anticipated, the Governor’s proposed budget for the FY2013-2015 biennium, in the form of LB 195, includes no funding for providing the state’s share of Children’s Health Insurance coverage for prenatal care for the unborn children of impoverished, pregnant women who are themselves ineligible due to unauthorized immigration status; in other words, no funding for last year’s intensely debated and enacted LB 599. Legislation that would repeal the LB-599 statute that specifically provides eligibility for these unborn children had not yet been introduced as of the eighth legislative day.
-
Youth Protection +
-
Evangelization & Catechesis +
-
Catholic Schools +
-
Youth Ministry +
-
Family Life & Discipleship +
-
News & Media +
-
Directory, Maps & Mass Times +
-
Diocese Home +
