Commission Adrift State constitutional panel lost sight of its mission Its purpose, as laid out in the Florida Constitution, was to study and recommend improvements to the state's tax structure, revenue needs and spending methods. But halfway through the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission's yearlong function, it became obvious its members weren't concentrating on reforming the state's broken-down tax system or addressing the state budget. Instead, they pursued political and ideological agendas, such as diverting public education dollars to private institutions and expanding faith-based programs in state prisons.
When the commission concluded its work last month, the seven constitutional amendments it proposed for the fall ballot revealed just how far the panel had strayed from its mission.
Of the seven proposals, only one addresses tax reform -- the so-called "tax swap" plan. If approved, it would crush public education. The amendment would end property-tax funding for school operations and require legislators to replace it with other revenue. That could lead to more cuts to social services, cuts to nonoperational school funds and potential tax increases for businesses. (The school funding cuts would be on top of what the Legislature wrought and voters forced through the tax-reducing Amendment 1 measure in January.)
Three other amendment proposals call for special tax breaks, two of which don't belong in the constitution.
Two proposals -- by far the worst -- would change constitutional provisions to allow the state to spend money on religion-based institutions. One egregiously undermines the state's constitutionally stated "paramount duty" to provide "a uniform, efficient, safe, secure, and high quality system of free public schools." It would shrink the duty to a minimal responsibility.
Only two of the proposed amendments have legitimacy. One encourages land conservation through a property-tax exemption. Another would allow community colleges to levy a sales tax, if local voters approve.
The commission also sent more than eight recommendations for laws to the Legislature, including one that would expand faith-based programs in prisons (since that plan failed to win the votes to get it on the ballot as a constitutional amendment). None of those statutory recommendations was of the caliber of this commission's predecessor, the 1990-92 Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. That panel led the state to create the Budget Stabilization Fund (mandating a minimum reserve fund), the 72-hour review before legislators can vote on the state budget and a performance and productivity measurement system for state government.
A year ago, many believed (including this newspaper's editorial board) that this commission would work seriously to reform Florida's rickety tax system. Instead, the commission succumbed to politics, lost sight of its mission and failed the public.
_______________
Read the op-ed and make comment on the
news-journalonline.com Web site.
http://tinyurl.com/5zlc2e_______________
News-Journal recommendations Below are News-Journal recommendations for the commission's seven proposed constitutional amendments:
1. WIND DAMAGE: This would repeal a clause giving legislators authority to give direct tax breaks to homeowners who install renewable energy devices. It would add one giving legislators authority to prohibit assessment increases for home improvements that increase resistance to wind damage or add renewable energy devices. Since the Legislature already has that authority, this is a feel-good amendment that deserves a NO vote.
2. CONSERVATION: This would require the Legislature to provide a tax exemption for property dedicated for conservation in perpetuity and would require tax assessors to value the land on current use rather than future use (known as highest and best use). This would encourage owners to set aside property for conservation and deserves a YES vote.
3.
TAX SWAP: This would prohibit the Legislature from requiring school districts to levy property taxes for operating purposes (but not for other purposes, such as construction) as a condition for receiving state per-pupil funding. Legislators would be required (at least initially) to replace the revenue (estimated at about $9 billion). Their options are to repeal some sales tax exemptions, increase the sales tax by up to 1 cent, reduce general budget spending or add other unidentified revenue. The measure also caps annual assessment increases at 5 percent for business property and other non-homesteaded property. If sales tax revenue were robust (which it is not), the 1-cent sales tax increase would bring in about $3 billion to $4 billion, leaving the schools about $5 billion short. Tax analysts believe that narrowing sales-tax exemptions could raise, at best, about $1 billion. This proposal could harm public schools by removing a more stable tax and partially replacing it with one vulnerable to economic downturns. It deserves a resounding NO.
4. WATERFRONT TAX BREAK: This would require that properties for working waterfront businesses be assessed at current use rather than highest and best use. This would apply to marinas, drydocks, commercial fishing properties, marine manufacturing facilities and other water-dependent businesses. Tax breaks specific to certain businesses do not belong in the state constitution. Voters should say NO.
5.
RELIGION AID: The proposal would remove the constitution's prohibition of aid to religious institutions. In its place would be a provision forbidding discrimination against participation in public programs based on religion. This would allow legislators to directly fund religion-based education, social services and prison services, and it could reduce accountability of how taxes are spent. This deserves a NO vote.
6. COMMUNITY COLLEGES: This would allow community colleges to ask voters to approve a local-option sales tax, which would expire in five years. Colleges are now funded by lump sums from the Legislature, plus student tuition and fees. It gives community colleges another funding option but could provide legislators with an excuse to cut funding. Even so, it could be beneficial and deserves a YES vote.
7.
VOUCHERS AND SCHOOL FUNDING: This asks voters to change the constitution's mandate that the state has a "paramount duty" to provide uniform, high-quality education. That duty would be fulfilled, under the proposed revision, "at a minimum and not exclusively." That change would open the door for public funding of private schools, using vouchers. It also would require school districts to spend 65 percent of school funding on "classroom instruction, rather than administration," leaving it up to the Legislature to define classroom instruction. The 65 percent provision gives the illusion of the state spending more on education without its having to spend a dime, and it gives legislators authority to mandate how local districts can spend their money, regardless of local needs. The amendment is detrimental to public schools and voters should say NO.