One of the only drawbacks of writing this column is that I have to submit it at least two days before publication — a deadline that I tend to stretch to the limit. Unfortunately, this week’s column involves a timely topic that is scheduled for a vote in Tallahassee one day after my deadline. Nonetheless, I believe it is a topic worthy of ink because it affects every Florida taxpayer, as well as the state’s economy.

Earlier this year, Florida’s Taxation and Budget Reform Commission (TBRC) resumed discussion about a controversial measure known as the Taxpayer Protection Amendment (TPA) or in some states, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).

The proposal would limit the amount of revenue all governments could collect to the rate of population or school enrollment growth plus one percent. More important, voters would have to approve any new taxes or fees, as well as the spending of surplus revenue. Furthermore, local government boards would have to vote by a supermajority to exceed the revenue limits.

At press time, the TPA had passed two subcommittees and was only one vote away from being placed on this year’s November ballot. To pass that final vote (scheduled for yesterday) and get the measure on the ballot, 17 of the 25 TBRC members had to vote “yes.”

In case you weren’t aware, the TBRC is formed only once every 20 years to review the state’s taxation and budgeting policies, and make recommendations for change. The commission has the ability to take any legislation, including a TPA, and place it directly on the November ballot without petitions or approval from the Legislature or the courts. So obviously, such a rare opportunity for tax reform has attracted considerable attention.

Although I don’t know the outcome of yesterday’s commission vote, I can tell you this much: The days and months leading up to it have been filled with debate and controversy. As expected, there’s been intense lobbying from both sides of the issue.



Pros & Cons

According to Americans for Prosperity, the TPA would help stabilize Florida’s economy and provide the sort of tax reform that state taxpayers have been demanding in the wake of skyrocketing property tax assessments. At least that’s the conclusion of a study conducted by the group in conjunction with the James Madison Institute, a Tallahassee think tank.

Their study says that if a cap on state and local government growth had been enacted in 1995-96, Florida taxpayers would have received an average of nearly $3.6 billion in property tax relief each year. That number translates into an average of $569 in property tax relief delivered per Floridian during the 2005-06 tax year.

Proponents of the measure say that a TPA is essential because it would limit excessive government spending and force it to become fiscally responsible. However, opponents (including many government officials) warn that the amendment will force government to reduce services amid the rising costs of fuel and health insurance, among other economic stressors.

Besides, they say, it hasn’t been a bed of roses in Colorado, where a similar revenue-capping amendment (the original TABOR) was enacted in 1992. One TABOR opponent and “typical soccer mom” who traveled from Colorado to Tallahassee to testify on the issue recently, claims that revenue caps may actually end up costing taxpayers.

To get out from under the cap, she said, local elected officials in her hometown of Crested Butte voted to exceed the caps, then raised fees and property taxes and created special taxing districts to pay for public projects. “It’s been devastating for us.”

Dan Quiggle begs to differ. The Florida chairman of Americans for Prosperity says that within just a few years of being enacted, TABOR turned Colorado’s economy around. “Before enacting its TPA, the Centennial State ranked 43rd nationally in economic growth per capita. Since then, it has ranked 7th. Also, Colorado ranked 33rd nationally in job growth before its TPA and 6th in the years following its passage.”



A Compromise

Obviously, Florida taxpayers are sick and tired of electing representatives who run on a platform of protecting their constituency but who ultimately succumb to pressures from special interests. Lawmakers should be protecting our money as if it were theirs. It’s frustrating when I see my money being thrown away on frivolous causes such as larger pens for pregnant pigs. Talk about pork barrel spending!

I agree with tying expenses and expenditure increases to revenue, but I don’t like the idea of going to the polls every time we need funds for a public project, hurricane relief or something else that would benefit Florida citizens. By eliminating the rainy day fund, we eliminate the ability to fund catastrophic or unplanned expenses, which could be extremely detrimental to our business environment and overall quality of life.

I won’t argue that our coffers were bloated during the real estate bubble and that state and local governments got far too used to spending freely, in many cases wasting vast sums. However, Lee County officials did a commendable job of reserving excess funding instead of blowing it. Thanks to their restraint, we are able to fund many of the capital improvements needed to spur private sector investment.

If passed, I’m afraid the TPA will bottleneck the system, much like the failed Hometown Democracy amendment would have had it gotten on November’s ballot and been approved by voters. I believe that a more effective solution lies in higher voter turnout, greater citizen involvement in the election process and a higher level of awareness of what’s going on in Tallahassee behind closed doors.

By making our lawmakers more accountable to the people they serve, we would have more trust in our elected officials. In turn, these sorts of amendments would no longer threaten to clog our ballots and add more bureaucratic layers to the lives of Florida residents.



Gary Tasman is executive director of Cushman & Wakefield’s Southwest Florida office. For more information, please contact him at (239) 489-3600 or gary.tasman@cushwake.com.