LINCOLN — Nebraska lawmakers unveiled a multi-step plan Thursday to cut red tape, periodically review or update state rules and regulations and, ultimately, save taxpayers money.

The legislative package coined as “GOAT” — Government Oversight, Accountability, and Transparency — is similar to the advisory Department of Governmental Efficiency (DOGE) that President-elect Donald Trump has proposed to advise members of Congress on how to shrink the federal government and find efficiencies. 

Several other states have set up similar advisory boards.

State Sens. Bob Andersen of Omaha, Danielle Conrad of Lincoln, Dan McKeon of Amherst, Dan Quick of Grand Island, Merv Riepe of Ralston and Tanya Storer of Whitman are leading the efforts with the Platte Institute, a nonprofit think tank, and Americans for Prosperity-Nebraska.

“The senators introducing legislation in this package have decided not to wait on an advisory body to make recommendations and instead are taking the ‘goat’ by the horns and starting the conversation in the elected body closest to the citizens: the Legislature,” said former State Sen. Laura Ebke, senior policy fellow at the Platte Institute.

‘Legislative eyes and ears’

Among a half-dozen proposals is Legislative Bill 29, from Conrad, to require executive agencies to review the necessity of existing regulations every three years.

The proposal mirrors a 2017 executive order from former Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, now a U.S. senator, that paused all new rulemaking for about six months. Ricketts had said the pause would allow time to review more than 7.5 million words in the administrative code, with more than 100,000 regulatory restrictions on the books.

Among the questions that Ricketts required state agencies to review were:

• Is the regulation essential to the health, safety or welfare of Nebraskans?
• Do the costs of the regulation outweigh the benefits?
• Does a process exist to measure the effectiveness of the regulation?
• Has a less restrictive alternative been considered?
• Was the regulation solely created due to state law?
• Was the regulation created as a result of a federal mandate?

Conrad noted those efforts have, as of 2023, reduced nearly 25% of state regulations from 2017, which was “an excellent first start, but we can’t rest on those laurels.”

She said the proposals, if enacted, could save money and “fight back against the ever-growing administrative state that has really entangled into far too many aspects of our lives.”

“We will ensure that there will be legislative eyes and ears on every rule and regulation that emanates from the bureaucracy on a periodic basis,” Conrad said, checking for if something is outdated, antiquated or cost-prohibitive.

Millions, possibly billions in savings

Another of the proposals already introduced, LB 366, from Riepe and Conrad, would create the Legislative Economic Analysis Unit led by a chief economist for the Legislature.

It would require periodic review of major rules or regulations that could result in, or are likely to result in, an economic impact of more than $1 million over five years or that could have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity or innovation, including such effects on individual industries or regions.

Another proposal from McKeon would create an executive branch office to ensure cost-benefit analysis of regulations and to make progress toward streamlining existing rules.

Ebke said a new office “sounds scary,” but thanks to efforts in other states, such as Virginia, “an office of four people has saved many millions of dollars, maybe billions.”

Former State Sen. Nicole Fox, director of government relations for the Platte Institute, said staff from Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s staff joined the nonprofit at an event in December. She noted that in two years, Virginia realized more than $1 billion in savings, $300 million in housing alone.

Fox said regulations like updates to the electrical code can seem necessary from an efficiency perspective but do end up passing on costs to taxpayers.

Ebke said the effort is designed to create an atmosphere where regulatory agencies do economic analyses considering costs to Nebraskans, rather than just costs to the state.

The other proposals have yet to be introduced, but would include: an inventory and examination of nearly all federal funds the state receives (Andersen); a measure to allow businesses to challenge regulations in local courts rather than courts in Lincoln (Storer), a measure to prevent agencies from issuing “binding” regulatory advisories (Quick).

‘Cornerstone of decision-making’

State Sen. Rita Sanders of Bellevue, the chair of the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee that would likely consider most parts of the regulatory package, said excessive rules can impede progress and hinder entrepreneurs or businesses from getting off the ground.

She said regulations should be crafted in the Legislature, “the cornerstone of decision-making.”

Speaker John Arch of La Vista, who endorsed the regulatory package, said the “good government bills” would lead to a better process and improve the function of government.

LB 346, introduced by Arch on behalf of Gov. Jim Pillen, would terminate or reassign the duties of more than 40 state boards, commissions, committees or councils. While it’s not part of the official Platte package, Arch said it helps accomplish the same goal.

Conrad said the combined efforts with Arch — “The Magnificent Seven” — will not eliminate every single rule or regulation, but she said they will ensure proper delegation of authority to stand up for Nebraskans, including consumer safety, public health and welfare.

“When we work together to remove the regulatory burden, it benefits all Nebraskans,” Conrad said. “It unleashes economic freedom and it ensures we have more opportunities for personal liberty.”