Don’t Get Me Started

Don’t Get Me Started

Andy Hefty

Florida Supreme Court prefers high taxes

GLEN SAINT MARY, FL -- What bothers me most about the Florida Supreme Court’s recent decision to remove "Amendment 5" from the ballot is their disdain for taxpayers’ desire to require the state to tighten its belt. Their reason for keeping the measure off the ballot? It was supposedly "misleading." Sounds more like an excuse to me.

So just what in the world was misleading? As I understand it, property taxes would be decreased and sales taxes would go up a penny to make up the difference. This would create a possible real-estate boom, allowing homeowners a little bit more relief in one crucial aspect of their lives. Sure, sales tax revenue can fluctuate, but the city of Jacksonville certainly took advantage of it in September of 2000, didn’t they? Or does everyone forget the so-called "Better Jacksonville Plan"?

As a sidebar, I was adamantly opposed to that, yet living in Baker County, I couldn’t vote for or against it. But any time I purchased something in Jacksonville, I helped fund the plan. It was very strange how the very minute the vote to allow the tax increase was passed, the baseball stadium and arena were started. Yet other areas (roads, sewage, libraries, and other infrastructure) were neglected until just recently. And every elected official in Jacksonville was touting this plan as a way to "improve neglected areas" that were supposed to already be budgeted for in the first place. Why didn’t anyone call that misleading?

But I digress.

I believe (and this is an opinion column, so take it for what it’s worth) that the Supreme Court agreed with a different, unspoken reason that the teachers’ union, CPAs, and others had in mind: uncertainty. If an economy is not as robust as citizens would like, they don’t spend as much money. Sales tax revenue would naturally be lower. If the value of homes remained flat, at least the revenue would be the same.

In other words, they didn’t want to risk lowering their expected budget and therefore cut any pet programs. I have several friends who own small businesses. If business is slow, they get a little time off. But since their livelihood is directly related to productivity, this is not necessarily a good thing. They are forced to adapt. Why can’t government officials and school systems? Why instead do they use the power of law enforcement to prevent their bosses, the voters, from setting their budgetary guidelines?

According to the Tampa Bay Business Journal, "The ruling came hours after the court heard oral arguments." What does that tell me? They had their mind already made up before the hearing. The Florida Times-Union editorial board, although opposed to the actual amendment, understands the process and endorses it: "If the voters want change, they should get it. If they don't, they should vote it down themselves. The courts shouldn't take the decision away from them."

I am one of the first to argue that the state Constitution is amended far too much. Think pregnant pigs. But this is an amendment that should have had its day on the ballot -- rather than a day in court.