Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen vetoes parts of budget but signs off on rest
LINCOLN, Neb. (KCAU) — Nebraksa Governor Jim Pillen signed the 2025-2027 State Biennium Budget, but there are some items he vetoed and sent back to state lawmakers.
The $11 billion budget will cover fiscal year 2025-26 and fiscal year 2026-27.
In his veto letter on Wednesday, Governor Pillen thanked the lawmakers for their work creating a fiscally conservative budget, which closed a projected $432 million shortfall.
Emergency management urges Governor Reynolds to veto 911 bill
The four-line item vetoes the governor issued in which he made changes to the budget include: nearly $12 million in reduction to the budget increase for the state's Supreme Court, cut $1 million from public health departments, and take almost $512,000 from the state Fire Marshal for salary and health insurance premium increases.
'As with all current decisions surrounding our state budget, as stewards of the public's resources we must prioritize what is necessary over what would be nice to have. We must be conservative in good times as well as during fiscally challenging times. Reducing spending is hard work, but Nebraskans expect us to exercise common sense and discretion in achieving a balanced, fair and operative budget,' said Gov. Pillen.
On Thursday, the Nebraska Unicameral said the governor's office sent the bills LB 261-E and LB 264-E to the Secretary of State's office instead of the Clerk of the Legislature's Office.
Under the state's constitution, the governor has five calendar days, excluding Sunday, to sign, veto, or line-item veto appropriations within the budget.
Two college graduates are back teaching in their hometown of Sioux City
Speaker John Arch said the measures were not delivered to the legislature by the five-day deadline of May 21, adding the Unicameral cannot accept the vetoes.
The governor's office will consult with the Nebraska Attorney General's Office and other counsel on next steps to effectuate the law.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Censorship is no way to get people to respect transgender rights
There was good and bad news for transgender rights in the U.S. last week. The good news was that a transgender high school athlete won two events in a girls' state track meet. And the bad news was that the Supreme Court allowed a school to censor a student's expression of the belief that there are only two genders. Suppressing ideas is never a good look in the U.S., whose Bill of Rights presupposes a freedom of speech that cannot be legislated away. And if we deny that freedom to anyone, then all of us — including transgender people — will lose. Free speech was on full display at the California track-and-field championship in Clovis, Calif. Under a new rule promulgated by the state interscholastic federation, the girls who finished just behind transgender athlete AB Hernandez in the high jump and triple jump were elevated to share her medals. That seemed just fine to Hernandez and also the other girls on the podium, who all exchanged high-fives and hugs. But it was not okay with protesters who gathered outside the stadium, chanting 'No boys in girls' sports.' Taylor Starling, a cross-country runner went on Fox News with her father to denounce 'guys that are taking away girls' awards, their medals, their spots.' Starling is part of a lawsuit alleging that she was demoted from her varsity track and field team when a transgender athlete took her spot. President Trump, meanwhile, threatened 'large scale fines' against California for allowing a 'Biological male' to compete the 'Girls State Finals.' Hernandez's mother fired back, denouncing people 'in positions of power' for harassing her daughter. Hernandez also spoke up against her critics: 'I'm still a child, you're an adult, and for you to act like a child shows how you are as a person.' But as petty and small as it may be for Hernandez's detractors to malign her as a 'boy' or a 'male,' they have the right to say it — just as I have the right to call them out. That's called America. Alas, that's also a memo that educators in Middleborough, Mass. seem to have missed. Earlier this spring, they sent home a seventh-grader for wearing a T-shirt declaring, 'There Are Only Two Genders' because 'other students had complained about the T-shirt and that it had 'made them upset.'' Then the student came back in a T-shirt that said, 'There are CENSORED Genders.' The school told him that wouldn't be allowed, either. I'm sure the shirts did make some people upset, but I also imagine that some were upset by a student at the same school who wore a T-shirt that read, 'HE SHE THEY IT'S ALL OKAY.' Once we decide to censor upsetting speech, we won't be able to speak at all. That's why the Supreme Court ruled in 1969 that 13-year-old Mary Beth Tinker could wear a black armband to her Iowa middle school to protest America's war in Vietnam. Schools cannot suppress speech out of 'a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,' the court declared in Tinker v. Des Moines. The only justifiable reason for restricting speech was if it threatened 'material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.' Did the T-shirt saying there are only two genders pose that kind of danger? Of course not. But a federal trial judge ruled that the school could censor the student anyway, because he was threatening 'the rights of others' to attend school 'without being confronted by messages attacking their identities.' So what would prevent a school from prohibiting the 'HE SHE THEY' shirt, on the grounds that it threatened the identities of devout Christians and Muslims? And couldn't a school also bar speech in support of AB Hernandez, whose critics might claim that their own gender identities were under fire? In each case, the answer is yes. Nevertheless, an appeals court upheld the Massachusetts judge's decision. And last week, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal. In doing so, it turned its back on Tinker v. Des Moines and its ringing affirmation of freedom, which is fundamental to our shared identity as Americans. 'Any word spoken in class, in the lunchroom, or on the campus, that deviates from the views of another person may start an argument or cause a disturbance,' the Tinker ruling acknowledged. 'But our Constitution says we must take this risk, and our history says that it is this sort of hazardous freedom — this kind of openness — that is the basis of our national strength.' In California, AB Hernandez demonstrated precisely that strength. But in Massachusetts, school officials closed off speech out of fear. That's a hazard to the freedom of everyone, no matter what they think about gender. And if you think otherwise, watch out. Someday soon, the censors may be coming for you. Jonathan Zimmerman teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania and serves on the advisory board of the Albert Lepage Center for History in the Public Interest.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Malaysia to host first Global Skills Forum outside Geneva, under ASEAN Year of Skills
GENEVA, June 9, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Malaysia has been honoured with the international recognition of hosting the Global Skills Forum (GSF) 2025, marking the first time the prestigious event will be held outside of Geneva. The official announcement was made on June 9 by Malaysia's Minister of Human Resources, The Honourable Steven Sim Chee Keong, during a high-level event co-organised with the International Labour Organization (ILO) in Geneva. The GSF main event will take place in Kuala Lumpur on 22–23 October 2025. Malaysia's selection as host reflects not only its role as Chair of ASEAN 2025, but also the country's growing leadership in workforce transformation, labour market reform and human capital development. The GSF 2025 will also serve as a flagship initiative under the ASEAN Year of Skills (AYOS), led by Human Resource Development Corporation, an agency under the Ministry of Human Resources Malaysia. First hosted by the ILO in Geneva in 2024, GSF's second edition in Malaysia signals global confidence in the country's skills leadership and future-of-work readiness. Malaysia's Global Commitment: Skills Access Without Borders "GSF 2025 is not just about future skills – it is about fairness," said Minister Steven Sim. "Whether you are a coder in Hanoi, a delivery rider in Jakarta, or a factory worker in Kuala Lumpur, your work deserves respect, your safety deserves protection, and your skills deserve investment." He continued, "To commemorate this important milestone, I am pleased to announce the global expansion of e-LATiH, Malaysia's national online learning platform. e-LATiH now offers free and borderless access to reskilling and upskilling content for any learner, anywhere in the world." "Additionally, as announced during the ASEAN Human Capital Development Investment Symposium on 27 May, Malaysia is opening our National Training Week (NTW), taking place from 14 to 21 June 2025, to all ASEAN citizens for the first time. The programme will offer over 65,000 free skills development courses, delivered through both online and physical formats, covering areas such as artificial intelligence, digitalisation, green technology, and leadership. We welcome ASEAN citizens to join us in this regional initiative," concluded Minister Steven Sim. GSF 2025 will convene 200+ delegates from 16 countries, including ministers, experts, industry and union leaders, and global bodies. Strategic objectives include: Strengthening regional cooperation on skills mobility and labour certification. Accelerating investment in green and digital skills. Strengthening public-private partnerships in workforce development through Sector Skills Bodies (SSBs) and innovation-driven ecosystems. Launching Malaysia's National Human Resources Policy 2024–2030 as a model for ASEAN-wide collaboration. Against this backdrop, GSF 2025 will serve as a platform to address key workforce challenges, including: Gig economy integration and protectionsGSF 2025 will tackle gig work formalisation and protections, with Malaysia leading via its upcoming Gig Workers Bill, scheduled for tabling in Parliament in the second half of 2025. Expanding social protection for all workersGSF 2025 will explore inclusive models for income security and universal protection, addressing gaps faced by informal, migrant, and self-employed workers in ASEAN. Rethinking occupational safetyFollowing Malaysia's ratification of ILO Convention C155, GSF 2025 will examine how digitalisation, remote work, and labour fragmentation are reshaping workplace safety and regulations. Private sector at the centre of skills innovationFor the first time, GSF 2025 will spotlight private sector leadership, with industry, employers, and training providers driving agile, future-ready skills systems. For information, For media and partnership, CommsPR@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Human Resource Development Corporation Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNBC
an hour ago
- CNBC
Supreme Court just gave DOGE access to Social Security data. Here's what personal information is at stake
The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Department of Government Efficiency access to Social Security Administration data that includes sensitive personal information of millions of Americans. The decision comes as the federal government sought a stay, or temporary suspension, after a federal judge blocked DOGE's access to that data in April. The nation's highest court granted an emergency application from the Trump administration to lift that injunction; the case is expected to proceed in lower courts. In its decision, the Supreme Court concluded the Social Security Administration may give DOGE access to agency records while the case plays out "in order for those members to do their work." More from Personal Finance:Millions would lose health insurance under GOP megabillAverage 401(k) balances drop 3% due to market volatilityTrump administration asks Supreme Court to lift ban on Education Dept. layoffs Both the White House and the Social Security Administration called the Supreme Court decision a victory. In a statement, White House spokesperson Elizabeth Huston said it will allow the Trump administration to "carry out commonsense efforts to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse and modernize government information systems." Likewise, Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano in a statement said the agency "will continue driving forward modernization efforts, streamlining government systems, and ensuring improved service and outcomes for our beneficiaries." Yet others expressed grave concern in reaction to the decision, including Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, advocacy groups and plaintiffs in the case against DOGE and the Social Security Administration. "This is a sad day for our democracy and a scary day for millions of people," said the coalition of plaintiffs including American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; the American Federation of Teachers; and the Alliance for Retired Americans, who are represented by Democracy Forward. "This ruling will enable President Trump and DOGE's affiliates to steal Americans' private and personal data," they said, while vowing to "use every legal tool at our disposal" to prevent the misuse of public data as the case moves forward. The dispute focuses on how much access DOGE should have to Americans' personal data. The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint in early March, stating the Social Security Administration had "abandoned its commitment to maintaining the privacy" of the sensitive personal information of millions of Americans under DOGE's influence. The Social Security Administration collects and stores some of the "most sensitive" personally identifiable information of millions of Americans, ranging from seniors to adults to children, the complaint notes. When applying for a Social Security number, the agency requires the disclosure of place and date of birth, citizenship, ethnicity, race, sex, phone number and mailing address. It also requires parents' names and Social Security numbers. But the agency is also privy to other personal data, including personal health information, the complaint notes. That includes: The Social Security Administration also collects tax information, including total earnings, Social Security and Medicare wages and annual employee withholdings. DOGE has not only accessed the agency's sensitive and protected information; it has also publicly shared it, according to the complaint. The actions of the defendants, including the Social Security Administration, DOGE and leaders including former head Elon Musk, have deprived Americans of privacy protections guaranteed by federal law and made their personal information vulnerable, the complaint alleges. In her dissent, Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, notes that records show "DOGE received far broader data access" than the Social Security Administration usually allows in fraud, waste and abuse investigations. Typically, those investigations start with high level, anonymized data, with more access to more detailed information only granted as necessary. Justice Elena Kagan also dissented in the 6-3 decision. "The government wants to give DOGE unfettered access to this personal, non-anonymized information – before the courts have time to assess whether DOGE's access is lawful," Justice Jackson wrote. While litigation is pending, the government has asked to temporarily suspend the lower court's temporary limitations on DOGE's access to Social Security data, she noted. "But the government fails to substantiate its stay request by showing that it or the public will suffer irreparable harm absent the court's intervention," Justice Jackson wrote.
