Lincolnite

I read the article, and it’s a nice problem to have for a change. However, we only need to look back a few years to see massive shortfalls. I’d like to see them build a nice rainy-day reserve - say $500 million. If they can increase the cash fund, I think rather than rolling out a bunch of property tax cuts, I’d rather see them go back to some of the areas that had to be cut (like universities) a few years ago, and put a little more money back into them.

The last thing that should happen is that all that money be spent while we’re flush. We know there will be another downturn at some point.

It was a nice article. I don’t think its a question of “if” but more a question of “when” there will be a downturn. Nationally, we seem to be headed into a recession with the sub prime mortgage mess (which has yet to peak), war costs, and high oil costs. So I definitely agree with the thinking that we should hold on to as much of the reserve as possible.

Still, there is room for some prudent investment. I would like to see some of the resources go into better water management so we can get out of this Republican river mess with Kansas and better use water resources, as well as investment in diversifying alternative energy production when subsidies for corn-based ethanol end. Nebraska needs long term strategies for these realities which affect the entire state and its economic vitality. After that they can consider paying people money for property tax relief. My two centavos.

Those are much better ideas than I had. I was going to suggest lottery tickets.

I think we should flood Ashland, build an archway over the lake, and put a new fairgrounds and arena on the archway.

This money should go nowhere except straight back to the people from which it was taken.

Keep 500 Mil as reserve, invest wisely.
Spend 40 mil on a necessary for the entire state; something all people could benefit from.
Giving it back to the people is stupid, jus tlike Johanns did.  A hundred or two per taxpayer doesn’t help the taxpayer.

<i>A hundred or two per taxpayer doesn

We’ll follow the 2001 tax cut model and give five dollars to most of the tax payers. That way there’s more to give to the rich peeps.

That would be logical, since the ‘rich peeps’ pay most of the taxes.

I hope they are investing that money so it can go to work for them. I don’t need a $30 tax rebate, or even $100 for that matter. Especially when you consider the inevitable economic downturn that Mr. T points out.

didnt I read a while back the NE DOR whining about a shortfall for roads and bridges. They said they’d have to raise taxes to get the money. Seems like they already have the money