Early last week, all eyes were on the Appropriations Committee as the University of Nebraska geared up to plead its case against Gov. Pillen’s and the committee’s proposed 2% cut to its budget. The University System had requested a 3.5% increase for this budget cycle; instead, it’s on the chopping block to the tune of anywhere from $32-$100 million if federally proposed budget cuts come to fruition as well. You might have heard or seen some growing media attention around this, like in recent radio ads or op-eds from prominent business lobby leaders* promoting the impact of NU, as University leaders increasingly sound the alarm about the damaging economic effects budget cuts would have on Nebraska communities, its many employees, students paying tuition, and critical research programs in areas across the state.
In a hearing Tuesday, University President Jeff Gold and other University advocates and leaders painted a bleak picture of how the cuts could devastate biomedical and agricultural research, rural education, economic and extension programs, raise tuition costs for students, slash financial assistance to enable high-performing scholars to attend, jeopardize the livelihood of the 52,000 people it employs, and reduce facilities maintenance and operations capacity.
At hearing’s end, it was unclear whether the Appropriations Committee would revise its preliminary recommendation of a 2% cut to the University’s budget, in line with what Gov. Pillen had requested.
Then on Friday, The Nebraska Economic Forecasting Advisory Board released some welcome news in their projection that increased the state’s expected biennial revenue by $165 million. That windfall coupled with the Appropriations Committee’s preliminary suggested budget cuts and shifts would mean they only now have a $100 million budget hole to fill, down from the $432 million gap they were facing at the year’s start. For now, it would not seem that this will make a difference for the University System or other state agency programs or services facing cuts, as a statement from Pillen in response to Friday’s news suggested the additional $165 million should be used “to support a balanced state budget that delivers critical investments in education and property tax relief.” However, the committee can still revise its recommendations.
*Side note: Bryan Slone, current President of the Nebraska Chamber of Commerce and one of the authors of the Nebraska Examiner Op-Ed in defense of NU linked above, announced early this year he’s stepping down at the end of the legislative session amid growing rumors that he may be looking to throw his hat back into the political ring as a possible Pillen challenger in 2026. Slone ran for Governor in 2014 and was among top candidates considered for appointment to replace US Sen. Ben Sasse in 2023. I am hearing more and more speculation about this being Slone’s plan, which would make for an interesting battle. With Pillen’s relatively weak approval ratings and leadership style that has frustrated GOP insiders and political heavy hitters from across influential industries, Nebraskans might have a different choice if Slone runs. Previously a Republican, he reregistered as nonpartisan in 2023. Consistent with his professional role, he’d likely be a pro-business type of conservative; but in his time heading up the Chamber he’s taken some more socially progressive stances than Pillen on issues like immigration and LGBTQ nondiscrimination, and has generally been supportive of policies that foster a more modern and welcoming culture that would attract and retain young and skilled workers in our state. It’s unclear whether those stances would carry over into a potential candidacy, and how much they reflected his personal beliefs or just those of his leadership board at the Chamber. Nevertheless, many of us think Gov. Pillen will have his work cut out for him on the campaign trail.
Minimum Wage Restriction Bill Advanced from Committee
Quickly after hearing Sen. Raybould’s LB 258, the Business and Labor Committee acted to advance it from committee with an amendment that places even more restrictions around wage increases than what the voters intended. The base bill caps the annual minimum wage increase at 1.5%, rather than adjusting for inflation under the Consumer Price Index as the ballot measure dictated. For example, this year’s Consumer Price Index figure for the Midwest Region was at 3.4% in January 2025.
Under the amendment advanced by the committee (AM 272), a subminimum “youth minimum wage” would be paid to workers under 20 years old – including 19 year olds who are legal adults under Nebraska law; and 18 year olds who are legal adults in most states, under federal law, and who have many adult-like rights under Nebraska law. This youth wage would only be increased by 1.5% every five years. This piece is certain to encounter opposition on multiple grounds: there are many young adults and older teenagers who are working hard to help support their families, who may be parents themselves or caring for other dependents, to help pay rent and put food on the table. Some work multiple jobs to afford college tuition. Their age alone is no justification for undercutting their pay. Especially in minimum wage jobs – think a grocery store clerk – these are not highly skilled professions that require extensive education and training that might be associated with an older age. Young people may in some cases even be faster, more efficient or effective at stocking or running a cash register, and we as a society (and federal law) have agreed that ageism is not acceptable in the other direction.
Many of us are well acquainted with the general arguments about why this is unfair: it’s pulling the rug out from under the people of Nebraska, who worked hard, organized, got out and voted for what they believed in to get the minimum wage initiative passed. Proponents of LB 258 will say that voters didn’t realize what they were voting for, but that’s a very questionable view for state leaders to take of our Second House on a fairly straightforward measure and sets a dangerous precedent that Nebraska voters aren’t smart enough to know what’s good for them. If the Legislature can simply step in and override whatever it is the people have voted for because legislators disagree with it, why even have a citizen right to petition at all? In a time where our civil liberties are under attack, we must remind our legislators that their authority does not supersede the will of the people.
It remains to be seen if Sen. Raybould will select this as her priority bill, though it seems by all accounts she remains steadfast in her commitment to getting it passed. It’s certainly caused a rift between her and many of her left-leaning colleagues, and many offices are getting complaints and puzzled inquiries about why she is doing this.
Bills Seek to Circumvent Voters’ Will on Public Education
There was something of a theme in committee hearings this week as several heard a variety of proposals that shared the common thread of attempting to undermine the voter’s sound rejection of the use of public funds (or diversion of taxable revenue) for private schools this past fall on the ballot. Sen. Dover’s LB 624 is the most similar to what was recently rejected by Nebraska voters in that it would provide $10 million in state funds for students to attend private denominational or parochial schools, but it leaves out the associated tax credit for donations that was part of past proposals.
Also considered were bills proposing state-administered education savings accounts that could be used for private K-12 tuition expenses via a new program under the state Treasurer (LB 427, Andersen) or by expanding allowable use of existing 529 NEST college savings accounts (LB 131, Sorrentino).
What’s Next
We stay the course with morning debate and afternoon hearings. Hearings end March 28, then all day debate begins March 31. We’re a couple of weeks out from the deadline for designation and announcement of all priority bills.
