Preparednessdaily.com

From The Market Ticker

As you consider your ballot in Florida, one of the features is our perennial interest in the Florida Constitution and the amendments proposed to it.

As a guide to voter education I present my opinion on these ballot initiatives.

1. Health Care Services:

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit laws or rules from compelling any person or employer to purchase, obtain, or otherwise provide for health care coverage; permit a person or an employer to purchase lawful health care services directly from a health care provider; permit a health care provider to accept direct payment from a person or an employer for lawful health care services; exempt persons, employers, and health care providers from penalties and taxes for paying directly or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services; and prohibit laws or rules from abolishing the private market for health care coverage of any lawful health care service. Specifies that the amendment does not affect which health care services a health care provider is required to perform or provide; affect which health care services are permitted by law; prohibit care provided pursuant to general law relating to workers’ compensation; affect laws or rules in effect as of March 1, 2010; affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or an employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider for accepting direct payment from a person or an employer for lawful health care services; or affect any general law passed by two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature, passed after the effective date of the amendment, provided such law states with specificity the public necessity justifying the exceptions from the provisions of the amendment. The amendment expressly provides that it may not be construed to prohibit negotiated provisions in insurance contracts, network agreements, or other provider agreements contractually limiting copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, or other patient charges.

Analysis:  This is essentially an attempt to block Obamacare (mandatory health insurance) at the State level.  However, it does exactly nothing for or to the Federal mandate.  It would prevent, however, imposition of a state-level mandate (e.g. such as was done in Massachusetts) in Florida. It would have been nice if the Amendment had removed cost-shifting and otherwise worked to dismantle the monopoly protections in the health system, but despite all the high-sounding language it does exactly nothing in this regard.  Nonetheless it does serve as a (weak) blocking function against a Massachusetts-style system being imposed in the state.

Recommendation: The Market Ticker recommends a vote FOR this Amendment.

2. Veterans Disabled Due to Combat Injury; Homestead Property Tax Discount

Proposing an amendment to Section 6 of Article VII and the creation of Section 32 of Article XII of the State Constitution to expand the availability of the property discount on the homesteads of veterans who became disabled as the result of a combat injury to include those who were not Florida residents when they entered the military and schedule the amendment to take effect January 1, 2013.

Analysis: This proposal is transparent on its face; it provides for a discount on the property tax for certain persons, but not others.   Real estate property taxes are an inherently-evil and outrageous form of taxation, in that they turn the premise of private property ownership on its ear, turning all such real estate owners into renters from the state.  Worse, you cannot avoid them by refusing to buy real estate, since you have to live somewhere and if you rent the owner simply passes the cost of these levies on to you.  As such they are an effective tax on simply being alive and residing within the boundaries of a given state, exactly as is Obamacare and are just as evil. 

While those who have been injured in service to our nation are owed a debt from all of us, the fact remains that playing on this misfeature of those who have suffered injury does not give rise to justification for discrimination, nor does the argument of “marginal decrease” hold sway.  The fact of the matter is that screwing people is screwing people and that a few people get less-screwed in fact discriminates against everyone else.

Recommendation: The Market Ticker recommends a vote AGAINST this amendment.

3. State Government Revenue Limitation

This proposed amendment to the State Constitution replaces the existing state revenue limitation based on Florida personal income growth with a new state revenue limitation based on inflation and population changes. Under the amendment, state revenues, as defined in the amendment, collected in excess of the revenue limitation must be deposited into the budget stabilization fund until the fund reaches its maximum balance, and thereafter shall be used for the support and maintenance of public schools by reducing the minimum financial effort required from school districts for participation in a state-funded education finance program, or, if the minimum financial effort is no longer required, returned to the taxpayers. The Legislature may increase the state revenue limitation through a bill approved by a super majority vote of each house of the Legislature. The Legislature may also submit a proposed increase in the state revenue limitation to the voters. The Legislature must implement this proposed amendment by general law. The amendment will take effect upon approval by the electors and will first apply to the 2014-2015 state fiscal year.

Analysis: I want to know who proposed this tricky little bastard of an amendment and would suggest that being tarred and feathered is an appropriate sentence for those individuals and groups.  This amendment proposes to change the State Constitution’s limitation on revenue collection from one based on income growth to one based on population and inflation.  This sounds good at first blush but in fact it’s a foil that further de-couples the taxation allowed from the earnings power of Floridians.  The CPI is a massively-flawed instrument to begin with simply on the basis of structure; it is only somewhat-accurate for those at the median income.  For those at lower-income levels it grossly-understates the amount spent on necessities such as food and fuel, while for higher income persons it grossly overstates their expenditures in this area.  As such this change would serve to be regressive on the lower half of all income-earners in Florida!  This is an amendment that only a pigman could love, but boy-oh-boy, you wouldn’t know that unless you understood how these government statistics work.

Recommendation: The Market Ticker recommends a Hell NO vote on this amendment.

4. Property Tax Limitations; Property Value Decline .et.al.

(1) This would amend Florida Constitution Article VII, Section 4 (Taxation; assessments) and Section 6 (Homestead exemptions). It also would amend Article XII, Section 27, and add Sections 32 and 33, relating to the Schedule for the amendments. (2) In certain circumstances, the law requires the assessed value of homestead and specified nonhomestead property to increase when the just value of the property decreases. Therefore, this amendment provides that the Legislature may, by general law, provide that the assessment of homestead and specified nonhomestead property may not increase if the just value of that property is less than the just value of the property on the preceding January 1, subject to any adjustment in the assessed value due to changes, additions, reductions, or improvements to such property which are assessed as provided for by general law. This amendment takes effect upon approval by the voters. If approved at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, it shall operate retroactively to January 1, 2012, or, if approved at the 2012 general election, shall take effect January 1, 2013. (3) This amendment reduces from 10 percent to 5 percent the limitation on annual changes in assessments of nonhomestead real property. This amendment takes effect upon approval of the voters. If approved at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, it shall operate retroactively to January 1, 2012, or, if approved at the 2012 general election, takes effect January 1, 2013. (4) This amendment also authorizes general law to provide, subject to conditions specified in such law, an additional homestead exemption to every person who establishes the right to receive the homestead exemption provided in the Florida Constitution within 1 year after purchasing the homestead property and who has not owned property in the previous 3 calendar years to which the Florida homestead exemption applied. The additional homestead exemption shall apply to all levies except school district levies. The additional exemption is an amount equal to 50 percent of the homestead property’s just value on January 1 of the year the homestead is established. The additional homestead exemption may not exceed an amount equal to the median just value of all homestead property within the county where the property at issue is located for the calendar year immediately preceding January 1 of the year the homestead is established. The additional exemption shall apply for the shorter of 5 years or the year of sale of the property. The amount of the additional exemption shall be reduced in each subsequent year by an amount equal to 20 percent of the amount of the additional exemption received in the year the homestead was established or by an amount equal to the difference between the just value of the property and the assessed value of the property determined under Article VII, Section 4(d), whichever is greater. Not more than one such exemption shall be allowed per homestead property at one time. The additional exemption applies to property purchased on or after January 1, 2011, if approved by the voters at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, or to property purchased on or after January 1, 2012, if approved by the voters at the 2012 general election. The additional exemption is not available in the sixth and subsequent years after it is first received. The amendment shall take effect upon approval by the voters. If approved at a special election held on the date of the 2012 presidential preference primary, it shall operate retroactively to January 1, 2012, or, if approved at the 2012 general election, takes effect January 1, 2013. (5) This amendment also delays until 2023, the repeal, currently scheduled to take effect in 2019, of constitutional amendments adopted in 2008 which limit annual assessment increases for specified nonhomestead real property. This amendment delays until 2022 the submission of an amendment proposing the abrogation of such repeal to the voters.

Analysis: As previously discussed Real Estate taxes are an inherently-evil edifice.  What’s even worse is the distortions introduced by “never goes down” property tax bills, even when assessed values decline.  This proposal, while not perfect, attempts to redress at least a small part of that problem.  What would be far better would be a flat-out repeal of property taxes and replacement with a consumption tax (e.g. sales tax) as that would both put the cost of government “in your face” and at the same time be mostly-avoidable for those who choose to live a modest lifestyle.  Since this amendment applies to all who have seen reduced valuations, it is thus able to be supported as it does not shove the cost of said reduction on others.

Recommendation: The Market Ticker recommends a vote FOR this amendment.

5. State Courts

Proposing a revision of Article V of the State Constitution relating to the judiciary. The State Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to adopt rules for the practice and procedure in all courts. The constitution further provides that a rule of court may be repealed by a general law enacted by a two-thirds vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This proposed constitutional revision eliminates the requirement that a general law repealing a court rule pass by a two-thirds vote of each house, thereby providing that the Legislature may repeal a rule of court by a general law approved by a majority vote of each house of the Legislature that expresses the policy behind the repeal. The court could readopt the rule in conformity with the public policy expressed by the Legislature, but if the Legislature determines that a rule has been readopted and repeals the readopted rule, this proposed revision prohibits the court from further readopting the repealed rule without the Legislature’s prior approval. Under current law, rules of the judicial nominating commissions and the Judicial Qualifications Commission may be repealed by general law enacted by a majority vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. Under this proposed revision, a vote to repeal those rules is changed to repeal by general law enacted by a majority vote of the legislators present. Under current law, the Governor appoints a justice of the Supreme Court from a list of nominees provided by a judicial nominating commission, and appointments by the Governor are not subject to confirmation. This revision requires Senate confirmation of a justice of the Supreme Court before the appointee can take office. If the Senate votes not to confirm the appointment, the judicial nominating commission must reconvene and may not renominate any person whose prior appointment to fill the same vacancy was not confirmed by the Senate. For the purpose of confirmation, the Senate may meet at any time. If the Senate fails to vote on the appointment of a justice within 90 days, the justice will be deemed confirmed and will take office. The Judicial Qualifications Commission is an independent commission created by the State Constitution to investigate and prosecute before the Florida Supreme Court alleged misconduct by a justice or judge. Currently under the constitution, commission proceedings are confidential until formal charges are filed by the investigative panel of the commission. Once formal charges are filed, the formal charges and all further proceedings of the commission are public. Currently, the constitution authorizes the House of Representatives to impeach a justice or judge. Further, the Speaker of the House of Representatives may request, and the Judicial Qualifications Commission must make available, all information in the commission’s possession for use in deciding whether to impeach a justice or judge. This proposed revision requires the commission to make all of its files available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives but provides that such files would remain confidential during any investigation by the House of Representatives and until such information is used in the pursuit of an impeachment of a justice or judge. This revision also removes the power of the Governor to request files of the Judicial Qualifications Commission to conform to a prior constitutional change. This revision also makes technical and clarifying additions and deletions relating to the selection of chief judges of a circuit and relating to the Judicial Qualifications Commission, and makes other nonsubstantive conforming and technical changes in the judicial article of the constitution.

Analysis: Separation of powers is an inherent good and part of our nation’s design.  We have conspicuously weakened that over time, with the worst offender being the 17th Amendment to our Constitution which effectively destroyed the bi-cameral nature of our national legislature.  This Amendment has both good and bad contained in it; the bad focuses on the reduction of the threshold necessary to overturn a decision of the Florida Supreme Court while the good focuses on a (moderate) increase in transparency when wrong-doing by justices is alleged.  The Amendment also imposes a Senate confirmation process on justices that is not currently present; at the present time Supreme Court justices are appointed by the governor and not subject to legislative review except through impeachment.

This one is a difficult call; in general enhanced oversight is a good thing and transparency is always a public good.  However, acts that tend to destroy the separation of powers are bad, and those that lower thresholds for legislative action are typically net-negative as well.

Recommendation: The Market Ticker must, after careful consideration, recommend a vote AGAINST this amendment.

6. Prohibition on Public Funding of Abortions

This proposed amendment provides that public funds may not be expended for any abortion or for health-benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion. This prohibition does not apply to an expenditure required by federal law, a case in which a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place her in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, or a case of rape or incest. This proposed amendment provides that the State Constitution may not be interpreted to create broader rights to an abortion than those contained in the United States Constitution. With respect to abortion, this proposed amendment overrules court decisions which conclude that the right of privacy under Article I, Section 23 of the State Constitution is broader in scope than that of the United States Constitution.

Analysis: Abortion is an issue on which reasonable people disagree; exactly where life is given protection under the law is the subject of much debate.  The debate in this area centers not only around exactly where, from the moment of fertilization to birth, we define an act as “homicide” but in addition where and under what circumstances involuntary servitude can be demanded of a woman, especially in the case where pregnancy results from a non-consensual act.  All of these factors clash with the undeniable biological realities of reproduction.  The Amendment is carefully constructed to exclude from prohibition those cases where pregnancy resulted from other than consensual conduct, thus removing one of the chief arguments against its passage.  As such what remains is a bar on public funds being expended for abortions that would otherwise occur due to consensual sexual contact.  It is the general policy of The Market Ticker that consensual adult conduct should come with personal consequences that are borne by the individual making the choice, not society as a whole, and thus given the construction of the amendment and its exceptions this change would advance that fundamental principle.

Recommendation: The Market Ticker recommends a vote FOR this amendment.

7. Removed

8. Religious Freedom

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution providing that no individual or entity may be denied, on the basis of religious identity or belief, governmental benefits, funding or other support, except as required by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and deleting the prohibition against using revenues from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution. 

Analysis: This has drawn a lot of hot debate among various groups.  The fact of the matter is that if you believe in non-discrimination at the government level then you cannot single out an organization to be discriminated against because they happen to believe in a God.  Groups that qualify for public funds on an objective basis should all be treated equally, irrespective of the religious beliefs (or lack of religious beliefs) of the persons involved in said group.  It’s that simple and all the arm-waving to the contrary simply devolves into bigotry, which is displayed in spades by a huge number of people arguing against this amendment.

Recommendation: The Market Ticker recommends a vote FOR this amendment.

9. Homestead Exemption For Surviving Spouse of Military Veteran or First Responder

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature to provide by general law ad valorem homestead property tax relief to the surviving spouse of a military veteran who died from service- connected causes while on active duty or to the surviving spouse of a first responder who died in the line of duty. The amendment authorizes the Legislature to totally exempt or partially exempt such surviving spouse’s homestead property from ad valorem taxation. The amendment defines a first responder as a law enforcement officer, a correctional officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic. This amendment shall take effect January 1, 2013.

Analysis: This is substantially identical to proposal #2 with a different “special” group.  Analytically it winds up in the same place.

Recommendation: The Market Ticker recommends a NO vote on this amendment for the same reasons it does so for proposal #2.  Solve the problem instead of creating more special privileges and discriminating against more people.

10. Tangible Personal Property Tax Exemption

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to: (1) Provide an exemption from ad valorem taxes levied by counties, municipalities, school districts, and other local governments on tangible personal property if the assessed value of an owner’s tangible personal property is greater than $ 25,000 but less than $ 50,000. This new exemption, if approved by the voters, will take effect on January 1, 2013, and apply to the 2013 tax roll and subsequent tax rolls. (2) Authorize a county or municipality for the purpose of its respective levy, and as provided by general law, to provide tangible personal property tax exemptions by ordinance. This is in addition to other statewide tangible personal property tax exemptions provided by the Constitution and this amendment.

Analysis: The tangible personal property tax, imposed on businesses, is a massive jobs killer in Florida.  Imposed on any business that carries inventory or otherwise owns personal property for the production of business income (subject to a $ 25,000 exemption), including inventory, this tends to drive businesses from the state and in particular has a disparate impact on goods-producing and other capital-intensive businesses, which are the precise sorts of businesses that produce actual wealth!  This tax should be repealed in its entirety, but absent that repeal this amendment is a good start.

Recommendation: The Market Ticker recommends a vote FOR this amendment.

11. Additional Homestead Exemption For Low-Income Seniors

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to authorize the Legislature, by general law and subject to conditions set forth in the general law, to allow counties and municipalities to grant an additional homestead tax exemption equal to the assessed value of homestead property if the property has a just value less than $ 250,000 to an owner who has maintained permanent residency on the property for not less than 25 years, who has attained age 65, and who has a low household income as defined by general law.

Analysis: Another bite at the same rotten apple presented twice already.  While seniors, especially low-income seniors, are certainly a worthy group in the general sense, discrimination cannot be justified on this or any other basis when the problem is the presence of property taxes in the first instance.

Recommendation: The Market Ticker recommends a vote AGAINST this amendment.

12. Appointment Of The Student Body President To Board of Governors of The State University System

Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to replace the president of the Florida Student Association with the chair of the council of state university student body presidents as the student member of the Board of Governors of the State University System and to require that the Board of Governors organize such council of state university student body presidents.

Analysis: This appears to be more of a substitution of form than substance in that the FSA already is comprised of the Student Body Presidents!  Therefore, at best this amendment appears facially to be nothing more than a reduction of levels of indirection but in terms of actual impact it is difficult to see where it changes anything on a functional level.

Recommendation: The Market Ticker has no position on this proposal absent development of new information explaining exactly why the proposed change and current provisions are not functionally identical or nearly so.