Constitutional limits on taxation and spending proposed

The Revenue Committee heard testimony Aug. 3 on a collection of proposed amendments to the state constitution intended to give Nebraskans more control over how much they pay in state and local taxes.

LR7CA through LR22CA, sponsored by Sen. Julie Slama of Dunbar, would allow voters to prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from levying new taxes, increasing tax rates, extending expiring taxes or increasing spending beyond a limit based on inflation and population change without voter approval at a general election.

Slama said a similar taxpayer bill of rights, or TABOR, measure approved by Colorado voters in 1992 has kept a “steady cap” on tax increases despite the state’s rapid population growth. She said TABOR requires the government to refund taxes paid in excess of the limit, making it “very popular” with Colorado taxpayers.

“The components of the bill of rights are designed to safeguard against unanticipated financial burdens on Nebraska taxpayers and ensure that significant financial decisions made by the government actually reflect the people’s will,” Slama said.

Jon Cannon testified in opposition to the proposals on behalf of the Nebraska Association of County Officials. He said TABOR runs counter to basic principles of American government, in which the people elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf.

Also in opposition was Lynn Rex, speaking on behalf of the League of Nebraska Municipalities and the Nebraska Association of Schools Boards. She said most Colorado municipalities, counties and school districts opted out of TABOR with voter approval after residents realized its negative effect on public programs and amenities.

Brad Young, a former Colorado lawmaker, testified in opposition to LR19CA, which includes the proposed limit on state spending.

In Colorado, he said, a similar limit has acted as a “constant government shrinking device” because it does not allow government spending to keep up with overall economic growth, resulting in lower spending on public education, health care and road maintenance.

No one testified in support of the proposals and the committee took no immediate action on them.