In the News Amendment 423: Disaster Looking For A Home Ed Howard September 21, 2006 Nebraskans have rejected some absurd ideas for changing the state's constitution. They will have another opportunity to strike a blow for sanity in November. Not one proposal put before the electorate in years past represented worse policy than this year's Amendment 423. Those championing enactment of this snake oil cure officially launched their 'Vote for 423 campaign Thursday. Opponents – a coalition of interest groups – were already out and about, explaining why they perceive the amendment as a potential disaster. Working-class Nebraskans are fed up with tax burdens, particularly property taxes; thus a potential base of support for such as Amendment 423 is available. Most people know their overall tax bill from all elements of government isn't likely to shrink; but they figure it could at least stop growing so quickly. The realities of government – with built-in costs that include social services, Medicaid, education and tax breaks for business – make real and meaningful budget reductions unlikely. Thus does frustration give rise to Big Bang budget theories – the kind that would use a cleaver for a budget-cutting job that needs close surgery. Amendment 423 is an odiferous example of a Big Bang that would backfire. It would link spending growth to population increases and a cost-of-living index. Its disaster-waiting-to-happen lies in the ridiculous steps it would require of state government to exceed spending as otherwise limited by the nonsensical formula. Big Bang notions draw fans. The mass of people don't believe the Legislature capable of addressing their wishes. Lawmakers offer piecemeal stuff that doesn't much help the little fellow; this, while little fellow sees handsome tax incentives going to those higher on the political and economic food chain. Fact: If Nebraskans want big reductions in state spending, something big has to be scratched from the budget. To keep a reduction in state spending from mandating increased local spending (usually financed through property taxes) the Legislature also has to eliminate some state-mandated costs. (There ain't no way out of federally mandated spending requirements.) What does the Legislature usually do to keep the proletariat at bay? It enacts tax increases labeled "temporary," then leaves them in place as long as politically possible. It enacts risky, although piddling, tax cuts in election years. It continues to reduce tax revenues in the purported hope that tax breaks will help business and generate the perceived benefits of "trickle down" economics. That's fine, depending on who's getting trickled on. With everything thus tied in political and economic knots, what's to be done? The BIG BANG! – the idea that if a big chunk of money can't be had, it can't be spent, and lawmakers cannot bow to interest groups. And then? Voila! Spending is reined in. This would be through the reality of lost public services, shifting of money to cover federal mandates, and a long parade of horribles. Conclusion: Unless the Legislature is convinced the electorate understands and supports the sacrifices that come with budget reduction, it won't do anything that amounts to anything – and the threat of the Big Bang will persist. This will ever be true, even when the Big Bang is represented by something as irresponsible, unworkable and outright dumb as Amendment 423.