What was cut? Not quite what it seems

A story on page two of today’s edition outlines the line-item vetoes Governor Jim Pillen issued after signing Nebraska’s 2025–2027 biennial budget. You’ll find the breakdown along with excerpts from the Governor’s veto letter—which, in the spirit of government transparency, was locked in a format that made text extraction unusually difficult.

...but let’s look past the political optics and get to what really happened.

On paper, the Governor announced a slate of spending cuts, totaling over $14 million from the General Fund and another $18 million from a cash fund set aside for upgrades at Lake McConaughy. It sounds dramatic—and it’s clearly intended to signal fiscal restraint—but these are not “cuts” in the way many readers might understand them.

In every major case, the vetoes are reductions in projected increases, not reductions to existing funding levels. Agencies like the Nebraska Supreme Court, the Fire Marshal’s office, and public health departments are not being slashed below what they received last year. Rather, the Governor scaled back how much more they were set to receive in the next two years.

The Court, for instance, was granted a 2.7% increase in its first year and 4.8% in the second—far above what the executive and legislative branches were allotted. The Governor’s veto trims that increase to match the more modest growth rates of other departments. It’s still an increase, just not as large.

The Fire Marshal’s salary and health insurance increases were vetoed on the grounds that the agency has enough in its current budget to absorb the costs, and the additional $2 million sent to public health departments? That funding had been justified by the COVID-19 pandemic, which is now—thankfully—behind us. The Governor’s veto rolls public health budgets back to pre-pandemic levels.

Even the biggest-ticket item—the $18 million for Lake McConaughy—is not a cut to current programming but a refusal to spend reappropriated cash reserves on recreational upgrades that the Governor says lack clear definition. The money remains in the fund; it’s just not greenlit for use right now.

These distinctions matter.

Too often, political language inflates the drama of budget decisions. A “cut” sounds harsh and immediate. In this case, what’s been trimmed is mostly ambition—not existing services. That’s not to say these decisions are meaningless. They reflect real choices about how conservative Nebraska wants to be with its revenue—and whether state government should plan boldly or cautiously in times of economic uncertainty.

Governor Pillen has made it clear he believes in restraint, and his budget signature reflects that philosophy. Whether you agree or not, it’s important to understand what was actually done—and what was not.

The Legislature could override these vetoes, but that seems unlikely. More likely is that these adjustments will stand, and that the agencies affected will live with less than they’d hoped, but more than they had last year.