A vote for Amendment 1 on the May 13 ballot will boost spending for community projects without raising taxes.
Admittedly, that sounds too good to be true.
But it is.
Any voter with a lick of sense who takes the time to research Amendment 1 will vote for it.
The proposed amendment to the state constitution is not about taxes. It’s not even about politics. It’s about common sense.
It’s such a good idea that even such dissimilar political types as Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat, and Attorney General Jon Bruning, a Republican, can agree that Amendment 1 should pass.
The proposal would allow public endowments created by a gift, bequest or sale of a public asset to diversify their investments.
Under the constitution, public endowments are prohibited from investing in stocks. Some researchers think the prohibition dates back to an era in the 1800s in which cities lost money by investing in railroad stocks.
With a broader array of options, trustees of public endowments could earn a better rate of return.
Currently, public endowments are earning an average annual return of about 5 percent. If Amendment 1 passes, proponents estimate the rate of return would almost double to 9 percent.
Broadening the array of investment options would also reduce risk. Trustees would be required to follow the prudent investor doctrine. They would have a legal obligation to invest money wisely. With more options, trustees would no longer be required to put all their eggs in one basket; they could choose the most prudent investments according to economic conditions.
Lincoln has the most to gain from passage of Amendment 1 because of the sale of city-owned Lincoln General Hospital allowed for creation of the Community Health Endowment of Lincoln, which has generated nearly $11 million so far.
One recipient of endowment funds is the Medical Assistance Program, which helps low-income residents apply for medications offered for free by pharmaceutical companies. So far, residents have received $11 million worth of free medications. Another is the ED Connections program, which reduced expensive and unnecessary emergency room visits by helping frequent visitors find better care elsewhere.
A similar proposed constitutional amendment failed on a statewide vote two years ago, perhaps because some voters incorrectly thought it dealt with investment of tax dollars, or because it was on a ballot that was so crammed with other issues, including a proposed tax lid, that voters didn’t have time to educate themselves sufficiently.
If voters do their homework this time, they’ll vote for Amendment 1.
