by Theodore Wiesehan

    Street confrontations between paid petition gatherers and paid petition blockers have ceased, as the July 7 deadline for collecting signatures came and passed.
     One of the most hotly contested issues, a proposed constitutional amendment to limit state spending increases, appears to have gathered enough signatures to clear the first hurdle (as of press time signatures remain to be verified) and gain a spot on the November ballot.
     What impact would a state government spending lid have on Seward County?
     That all depends on whom you ask.
     While acknowledging the difficulty of predicting state budgeting decisions, Seward City Administrator Dan Berlowitz believes it's likely such a growth restriction would strain the resources of local governments.
     "One of the first places they (state government) start cutting is funding to local government," Berlowitz said, recalling state funding cuts to municipalities during a budget crunch two years ago. "We've not had that restored, and the difference has to be covered at the local level."
     As Nebraska requires local governments to maintain a balanced budget each year, making up the difference at the local level brought on by state funding cuts entails either cutting services or raising local property and sales taxes.
     "We receive about $60,000 a year in state aid and $450,000 to $460,000 in highway allocation funds to help run our street department," Berlowitz said. "Those funds are important and they've already been cut over the years."
     Seward County Board of Commissioners Chairman Joe Ruzicka said that Seward County receives a good deal of its operational funding from the state, as well.
     "I kind of feel like it (the proposed amendment) might be a detriment," Ruzicka said. "I know if it encompasses all of the state spending I think you're going to see a lot of road repairs neglected."
     Public schools rely still more heavily on state funding. According to Milford Schools Superintendent Kevin Wingard, next year's state aid to Milford schools will total $1.9 million - nearly 40 percent of the 2006-2007 operating budget of slightly more than $5 million.
     "Obviously it (changes in state aid) would have an impact on us," Wingard said, citing a Nebraska Council of School Administrators' study showing K-12 schools losing more than $86 million statewide from 2005 to 2007 had the proposed spending limits been in place.
     "Our (Milford's) general levee is 95 cents and that's the minimum levy we are required to have," Wingard continued. "We've been used to this minimum levy and that would be impossible to maintain if the state aid were to have cuts like that."
     Mike Groene of North Platte, chairman of the Nebraska Stop Overspending (SOS) coalition, sees the proposed amendment as the only way to rein in out-of-control state spending.
     "Our (Nebraska) spending went up 7.8 percent this year," Groene said, "and (will increase) 7.8 percent next year, it's projected by the fiscal office, if they never even show up, if the Unicameral doesn't even meet."
     "Until we get state spending under control, taxes are going to keep going up which is going to push out more and more people," SOS spokesman Dave Nabity agreed, "It's going to be a downward spiral that's going to cause the state to self-destruct."
     The amendment's supporters are also quick to point out that their plan still allows for budget increases, but lets state spending grow only at the rate of inflation and population growth.
     "And if at any time that's not enough, our state leaders have to take it to the people to vote to expand the limit," Nabity said.
     "That makes the lobbyists and special interest groups move over and lets the people pull up a chair when the decisions are being made," Groene added.
     Nabity hopes a spending lid will force the state to "streamline and modernize our infrastructure."
     "Nebraska has never done a top-to-bottom assessment of our state government," he said. "While other states in the early '90s were doing performance audits and performance reviews of state government, Nebraska has never done it and frankly, because of the power that the special interest groups have on this state, elected officials will never have the courage to do it unless they have a limitation on growth and spending."
     As for local tax burdens, Nabity claimed such arguments were moot.
     "I hear the nay-sayers saying it's going to increase property taxes and local taxes," he said. "The one question you've got to ask is didn't they go up anyway over the last 10 years? Isn't it about time we slowed the growth?"
     Nebraska Sen. Don Pederson of North Platte, chairman of the state's appropriations committee, holds a different opinion about the proposal, however.
     "I've looked at that law that's being proposed and I think it creates a number of mechanical problems as far as how we do our budgeting process," he said in a July 6 interview with the Seward County Independent. "In all likelihood we would probably have to have a special session after the regular session in order to comply."
     Pederson said that the economic measures used by the proposed amendment to determine allowable spending increases are flawed as a way of calculating state budgets.
     "They talk about the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as being a measure (of growth)," he said. "The CPI for all states determines Medicaid at approximately six percent of spending. Actually, ours is approaching 18 percent. These are things over which we have no control, but it would make it appear that we are spending beyond the CPI."
     Pederson echoed the views of Berlowitz and Wingard on local tax burdens, as well.
     "Of course we could reduce what you call state spending by spending less on K-12 education," he said. "That's actually our biggest spender. If we reduce that to comply, the burden...would either be less schooling or the local property taxpayer is going to have to make up the difference."
     Both supporters and opponents cited the example of Colorado's Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), a 1992 law similar to the proposed Nebraska amendment.
     In 2005, Colorado voters passed a resolution to allow the state to keep an estimated $3.7 billion of revenue over the next five years that it would have otherwise been required to refund to taxpayers by TABOR. Opponents to state spending lids view the decision as an indication of TABOR's failings.
     "It (TABOR) did exactly what it was supposed to do," Nabity argued. "It put the power and the choice in the hands of the people instead of special interest power brokers."
     Another bone of contention among some is the use by the SOS coalition of funding from groups outside the state of Nebraska.
     "It bothers me tremendously that this is brought to us by people from Illinois and Montana," Pederson said.
     Wingard expressed frustration over petitioners from outside the state influencing Nebraska politics.
     "I asked every one of the petition carriers where they were from," Wingard said of the petition workers prevalent at Seward's Fourth of July celebration. "None of them were from Nebraska."
     Groene dismissed opponents' criticism of outside support, reiterating that only Nebraskans could sign petitions and vote on the proposed amendment in November.
     "It's done in America all the time," he said of the out-of-state aid. "People who have convictions will donate their money to causes to help their neighbors out. Motives from our supporters, our friends who have helped us...is an ideology that Americans should be in charge of their government. Why do our opponents fear Nebraskans getting involved in the fiscal operations of our state government?"
     Pederson remained skeptical of out-of-state influence, however.
     "It's the same group of people, I think, that were involved in term limits," he said. "In my opinion they don't like representative government."