Category: Opinion

2012 Florida Ballot Amendments

West Boca News is pleased to present a brief summary of the eleven constitutional amendments on the ballot this year:
Amendment 1: Obamacare
While not explicitly mentioning President Obama, Amendment 1 is pretty clearly aimed at the Obamacare mandate. It would “prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person or employer to [buy/get/provide] health care coverage.
If you oppose Obamacare, you probably want to vote for Amendment 1. If you support Obamacare, you probably want to vote against it.
With that said, it’s doubtful that this would be effective since the Supreme Court has already ruled the mandate is constitutional, and federal law is supreme (it overrides state laws and constitutions). If Amendment 1 passes, the state and federal government will waste a lot of money and time fighting over it in court. So if you don’t like government wasting our money, you might want to vote no even though you don’t like Obamacare.
Amendment 2: Disabled Veterans
This is one of a number of special interest amendments on the ballot. It effectively reduces property taxes for disabled veterans. Like many special interest ideas, this reminds me of “nuke the gay whales for Jesus.”
Here’s the thing about special interest tax breaks – it means the rest of us will pay more taxes to make up for what the special interests don’t pay. Some say the schools and local governments will get less revenue, but I’m confident they’ll find a way to make that up, out of our pockets.
I have tremendous respect for veterans, disabled or not. They already get a lot of benefits, such as medical care at the VA. Maybe they don’t get enough, but veterans’ benefits is a federal issue.
I’m voting no.
Amendment 3: State Government Revenue Limit
I have to admit this one goes a little over my head. As best I can tell, it would place a tighter restriction on the growth of state revenue than the one that is currently in place, based on inflation and population, instead of on personal income.
Supporters say it will cut state government spending. Opponents also say it will cut state government spending.
Since I think governments at all levels spend too much, it seems like a good idea to me. I’m voting yes. But I’d love to hear more from anyone who understands it better. Please post comments (on other amendments as well) or send me an e-mail. If I hear enough, I might add a further post.
Amendment 4: More Property Tax Breaks for Special Interests
Like Amendment 2, this is a tax break for special interests. On its face it’s for certain property owners and first-time homebuyers. The pro argument I heard was that this would boost property values. I doubt it.
Basically this gives a property tax break to a few small groups of people, and I’m pretty sure I’m not one of them. You’re probably not getting the break either. Giving a tax break to someone else means the rest of us pay more.
I’m voting no.
Amendment 5: State Court Rules
This one is being criticized as an attack on the state courts. It does shift power from judges to the state legislature. But the proposals seem pretty reasonable. It would:

  • Give the Florida State Senate the power to confirm or reject the Governor’s judicial appointments. This is not radical. It’s exactly what we have in the federal courts.
  • Let the legislature repeal a court rule by a simple majority vote, instead of the 2/3 vote currently required. That also seems pretty reasonable.
  • Makes slight changes in the confidentiality rules when the Florida House considers whether or not to impeach a judge. I don’t love this part but it also doesn’t seem like a big deal.

Overall these proposals make the legal process more open and democratic. Might not be perfect, but I’m voting yes.
Amendment 6: Public Funding of Abortion
This would dramatically reduce government funding of abortions, but still has some exceptions (such as danger to the mother, rape or incest). It also provides that the State Constitution cannot provide broader abortion rights than the US Constitution.
This one’s tricky. Most pro-choice voters will probably vote no. Nearly all pro-life voters will vote yes. The only catch is the pro-choice voters who are concerned about government spending or abortion moderates who don’t like government funding abortions.
The second part about abortion rights is a big deal to the hardliners in both camps, but I don’t think it will make a big difference and may not matter at all.
I’m voting yes because I’m a hardliner on spending.
Amendment 7: Huh?
That’s the democratic process for you. There is no Amendment 7. It’s like the 13th floor of a hotel.
Amendment 8: Religion
This has to do with whether government money can go to religious institutions. The main impact would be to allow parents to use school vouchers for religious schooling instead of limiting that money to secular private schools. It would also allow taxpayer dollars to go to other faith-based programs.
I’m a fan of voucher programs because they give parents more control over their kids’ education. And while I’m not religious, I do think there are many good religious schools.
I’m not keen on the other faith-based programs, but that’s not enough for me to oppose this. I’m voting yes.
Amendment 9: Another Special Interest Tax Break
This is a property tax break for a special interest. In this case it’s for “surviving spouses of military veterans … police, firefighters and other first responders who die in the line of duty.”
I’m voting no for the same reasons mentioned above for Amendments 2 and 4.
Amendment 10: Yet One More Special Interest Tax Break
This time it’s on “tangible personal property used in a business or to earn income.” Apparently this tax break will supposedly help small businesses. The current exemption is $25,000, and this would raise it to $50K. If you’re not paying this tax now, then you will have to pay more to make up for the lost revenue.
I’m voting no.
Amendment 11: Yes, Another Break for Special Interests
This is a tax break for “low-income” people over 65 who have lived on their property for 25 years or more. The hidden secret is that a lot of low income seniors are wealthy but don’t have high incomes.
Again, this tax break means the rest of us will have to make up for the lost revenue. I’m voting no.
Amendment 12: State University Board of Governors
This wins the Most Boring award of the amendments. It has to do with how the student representative to the Board of Governors is appointed. In the process it creates a new council of student body presidents, which sounds like a great way to waste more of our money on something completely unimportant.
I’m voting no.

Palm Beach Post Endorses O'Hara

In a somewhat surprising move, the Palm Beach Post has endorsed James Ryan O’Hara, the Republican candidate for State House  in the district that includes West Boca.
I’ve met O’Hara several times and like him. His opponent, Kevin Rader, supports more sales taxes on the middle class. That would seem like an odd position but it’s common among Florida Democratic candidates and the district does lean Democrat.
O’Hara has an uphill battle, and not only because of the partisan disadvantage. Money is a big issue. O’Hara doesn’t have much of it, while Rader is the darling of all kinds of special interests.
I was surprised by the endorsement because I’m used to newspapers endorsing incumbents and favorites. Just like its endorsement of Dina Keever and intensely critical coverage of Dave Aronberg, the Post is demonstrating real independence. We need more of that in the media.

Steve Perman on the November Election

Rep. Steve Perman, a sitting member of the Florida House, and a West Boca chiropractor with his practice in Mission Bay Plaza, offers his take on the November election. We thank Dr. Perman for offering his insights.

I believe that the greatest deterrents to putting the best people in office to govern and legislate are three things: Ignorance, Apathy and Cynicism: not knowing, not caring and no longer believing that things can improve. This year, the presidential race has divided the country more than ever before. And, in addition to differing ideologies between the two parties, it also revolves around which side can spend more money to use every possible media outlet to boost their appeal to their respective bases and denigrate the opponent. Now that the third and final presidential debate has aired, the jockeying for the last sliver of the electorate, the elusive “undecided” voter, carries us down the home stretch to November 6th.

We are told, accurately I believe, that the final result will be decided in the so-called “swing” or “battleground” states, with particular attention to those with the largest number of electoral votes, Ohio and Florida. It is worth noting that the differences between these two states are rather stark. At the risk of oversimplification, Ohio is generally characterized as a “blue-collar”, industrial, land-locked, Midwestern state, while our own Sunshine State is coastal, right-of-center except for a few geographic clusters (notably Palm Beach and Broward counties), focused on tourism and agriculture as our main economic drivers and has the largest concentration of seniors/retirees of all fifty states.

Going back to my original points that open this article, I am concerned that too many voters will take the barrage of one-sided ads and the skewed points-of-view of Fox News on the Right and MSNBC on the Left as their sole sources of information. All of these are flawed to a greater or lesser extent and I expect that too few voters will look beyond them as they form their opinions and choices. I think that passions are running very high in this election so that while the voters may be less apathetic, the progressives are scrambling to “get out the vote” and at the same time many states with strong conservative legislative majorities, such as Florida, have made unabashed efforts to make voting more difficult for likely Democratic voters (under the dubious guise of reducing voter fraud—which experts agree is almost non-existent). This will still have impact even though a number of states, notably Pennsylvania, have had their State Supreme Courts overturn or reverse all or part of these restrictive new voting laws.

And finally, the issue of cynicism. This looms large, as I have heard so many potential voters express that with regard to our economy, the hole is so deep, that neither candidate has a feasible strategy to lift us, as a nation, up and out of the morass in a timely fashion. So, still craving a better tomorrow, as many of us, thankfully, still do, we ultimately make our choice based on the “right-or-wrong track” evaluation of our two candidates. The arresting and apparent reversal, though gradual, of the downward spiral of our economy since the devastating economic crash that immediately preceded the last Presidential election is the economic rationale for Obama’s re-election (we are creating millions of jobs as opposed to losing them and the stock market has more than doubled), while putting a “businessman” in charge is the battle cry for Romney’s camp. Secondary to the economy, but still of great critical importance to our nation’s future, are the issues of health care, women’s rights, foreign policy, including the “powder keg” that is the Middle East, and who will be choosing the next to Justices on our Supreme Court. In all these areas, I find enough differences between the candidates that American voters, for the most part, are dramatically, and it seems, pretty evenly divided and no one will be surprised if the outcome on Election Night will be one of the closest ever, perhaps even rivaling the Bush-Gore race of 2000. And, whoever prevails with still have to contend with a harshly partisan (read: dysfunctional) U.S. Congress. As the old curse goes: may you live in interesting times. Stay tuned–its going to be a real nail-biter.

Rep. Steve Perman, D.C.
currently serving FL House 78

Sun-Sentinel: Poor Analysis on Abruzzo-Peterson

The Sun Sentinel yesterday endorsed State Senate candidate Joseph Abruzzo over Melanie Peterson.
Here’s what the Sun-Sentinel said about Abruzzo that stood out to us:

His priorities include passing legislation that will outlaw texting while driving, cut the euthanasia rate of dogs and cats and will improve Florida’s workforce by giving state university and college students an incentive to learn languages to better connect with Florida’s largest global trading partners.

So, in a time when the economy is in deep trouble, Abruzzo’s priorities include harassing drivers, protecting dogs and cats, and foreign language education in state universities and colleges.
If this foreign language education is such a priority for Abruzzo, why doesn’t he mention it on his campaign issue page on education. Nor do the other two show up on his campaign site.
And here’s the short shrift they give to Peterson:

His opponent in the race is Republican Melanie Peterson, a 35 year-old horse trainer in Wellington. She shows promise as a first-time candidate, but Abruzzo’s experience and productivity gives him a sizeable edge.

Apparently there’s something wrong with “first-time candidates.” Some voters think we’ve had enough of experienced politicians.
When I asked Abruzzo how he’d pay for all the spending he wants, he said he’d collect sales taxes on internet purchases. For those of us who buy from Amazon and other online vendors, Abruzzo’s answer seems to be to raise our taxes.
If tax-and-spend is what the Sun-Sentinel wants, they should be open about it.