The cap is back

A coalition of small-government advocates today launched an effort to place a constitutional cap on local government growth on the 2010 ballot.

The cap would limit growth to inflation plus population, or about 5 percent to 6 percent per year. Cities and counties could break the limit, but only after getting voter approval.

Called "Your dollar, Your decision," the effort is similar to a cap attempted earlier this year by the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. But that quickly became bogged down in philosophical differences and logistical problems. "It's difficult to get politicians to restrain politicians," said Adam Guillette, director of Americans for Prosperity Florida.

The Legislature has already placed a cap on local government, but many cities and counties (40 percent, according to the coalition) voted to exceed that or raised fees to make up the shortfall. The proposal attempts to prevent that by placing that authority with voters.

(photo: Kimberly Abelon, 35, of Jacksonville, becomes one of the first petition signers during a news conference in Tallahassee.)

*

Comments

[Not the time to for cutting government regulation.]

All of these efforts to "Cap" government spending originate in one place - with business entities which hope, by crippling government, to eliminate regulation of their activities. That they could revive this effort given the disaster that has occured in our economy through THEIR deregulation efforts, shows how little they think of the voter's ability to see through their ploy.

Stop treating the Constitution like a Christmas tree!

12:19 - Hogwash to you old buddy. I'm a voter/taxpayer and I like the plan to limit government just fine. Only thing I see wrong with it is that it should first ROLL BACK government spending to 2005 levels - the time at which most honest wage earners' wages ceased to grow.

12:51,

If you want better control over government spending... try getting off your A S S on election day and elect new and better government.

[Don't blame "The Government", Blame the GOP]

12:51 I can understand why you might have a bad taste in your mouth after the horrible spending record of Bush and the Republicans. It's hard to imagine, but they started a war for Exxon-Mobil that our kids will be paying for into their old age. However, the cost of the finacial bailout which we must now incur as a direct result of deregulation, will be even higher. If you just make the obvious connection between tax cuts and deregulation, you will see that we need to find a way to afford more regulation, or we will continue to pay a great price for our desire to have a few extra bucks in our pocket right now. What we need is good government spending, not a crippled government.

Business's making over 10 million a year should have their taxes raised to 50% with an INCREASED amount of regulation. Not a decrease in taxes and regulation as the businesses want.

[Omega83]

Everyone hates earmarks, pork and general government spending - except for the ones that repave their roads or get trash picked up on time

[Just say no to more government]

1:08-

Nah, that's OK. Government sucks.

1:17-

So you don't like jobs then?

You must live off welfare or work for government.

1:17 failed econ 101

[Donald lance]

If govt growth is necessary ( I can't believe I just typed that), then it's growth should be tied to the economic growth of that city and not some arbitrary number. In turn, if that city turns to economic decline, so too should the local govt. Capping govt growth is like a free ticket to expand. Look at the prop tax amendment that was passed this year. That didn't stop local govt from raising millage rates, thus eliminating any chance of a savings for the home owners.

[Gator(R)]

1:17 Are you referring to $10 million in revenue or net income. If you are referring to revenue, the company may not actually have any income to tax. If you are referring to income, then they are already being taxed, and then stockholders, if any, are also taxed on dividends as well. Taxing Corporations has always been an interesting conundrum - does it hurt stockholders, employees, competition with other countries, consumers? Who is really impacted when business are taxed?

Most businesses are requlated now by somebody, just may not be very well, or not over the right things.

If you go to this website, the cap is inflation plus population growth which averages about 5-6% per year. The amendment allows that growth without voter approval, it just says voter approval is required to go above that number. I don't see how that "cripples" government.

[Omega83]

Why should voters in Hillsborough County have so much of a say on how those in Levy County would like to see their local government run?

I am all in with 12:51 despite what the union representatives and special interest lobbyists here say.

Look at all the cities in the rust belt that treated the public sector like a sacred cow as they killed off the tax base and jobs that served as the reason for the prosperity.

Sure public sector job patronage works for political reasons but eventually even that fails too, otherwise Youngstown, Detroit, Cleveland,Gary etc. would be boomtowns.

[Don't blame "The Government", Blame the GOP]

1:42 I've got a better idea. Elect local government leaders and let them do their jobs. Demand accountability and if you don't like what you hear elect someone else. These tax cut fanatics are just demagogues, so logical arguments don't matter to them. THEY WANT TO CRIPPLE GOVERNMENT TO AVOID REGULATION AND INCREASE THEIR PROFIT AT YOUR EXPENSE, AND THEY WILL USE ANY EXCUSE THEY CAN. The cost is staring us in the face with our current economic failure. Don't be fooled.

1:52 - The voters in Hillsborough County would have NO say in Levy County. Voters in Hillsborough would approve/reject spending increases proposed by Hillsborough County, Levey County voters the same for Levy County, and so on.

sofa king retarded

1:42 - don't try using logic - it confuses people here...

But, the problem I see is that even if there is no need for increased revenues - some counties (LEON), would insist that by approving this amendment means that Citizens WANT their taxes and budget to increase by 5-6%...

2:01 When property values were skyrocketing and local governments could have reduced millage rates substantially and still have plenty of money, they didn't. They kept increasing revenue at 10-15% per year. The cap will stop that, even if it allows a small increase.

Rollback taxes and spending to 2002 levels, expand SOH to all property both residential and commercial, cap all government and taxation at annual cpi, and vote every incumbent out of office at your first opportunity.

Problem Solved!

For those of you blaming everything on deregulation, maybe it would do you well to research ALL of the causes of the current mess. Deregulation is only part of it, NO regulation is part of it, AND THE DEMOCRATS DESIRE TO PUT EVERY PERSON IN A HOME REGARDLESS OF THEIR ABILITY TO AFFORD ONE contributed as well. The blame is shared on this one. You precious Bill Clinton and the rest of the Democrats share some of the blame in addition to Bush and the rest of the Republicans.

[Omega83]

1:59

yes, in regards to if the amendment passes...however, let's say a majority of Levy voters reject the amendment and a majority of Hillsborough voters support it (with Hillsborough having far higher numbers of voters), because it is a statewide amendment, Levy citizens would be subjected to the whim of Hillsborough voters...

this is the problem with statewide initiatives...they override the intent of voters in separate and often very different counties.

As it pertains to local government, decisions should remain with the local voter...there would then be no need for such an amendment

The cap is back. Of course the cap is back. As long as there is money to be made running constitutional initiatives there will be petition drives. Note to the organizers of this one: ACORN will be needing something to do now that voter registration deadlines have passed.

Rollback taxes and spending to 2002 levels, expand SOH to all property both residential and commercial, cap all government and taxation at annual cpi, and vote every incumbent out of office at your first opportunity.

Problem Solved!

[Andrew Allan]

12:51 here, back to reply. Again, I say, HOGWASH. HOGWASH! I agree we need government to do better work. But as has been amply proven over the past few years, more expensive government does not mean we're going to get that better work. On the contrary, the more expensive our government has become, the less responsive it has become to citizens.

And I say again, we need to cut government expense back to 2005 levels before we even BEGIN to talk about reducing growth. And as a wise woman said on the news last night, when we start cutting, we should "CHOP AT THE TOP".

Let that be the rallying cry of downtrodden taxpayers everywhere. CHOP AT THE TOP! Why on earth should a government bureaurcrat with all their benefits receive a higher salary than someone who actually works for a living and can't even look forward to a decent retirement. CHOP AT THE TOP.

Cut those $200K salaries down to around $75K. And cut the $75 K salaries down to around $40K, as has happened to those of us outside the marbled halls of government. CHOP AT THE TOP! CHOP AT THE TOP! CHOP AT THE TOP!

Rollback taxes and spending to 2002 levels, expand SOH to all property both residential and commercial, cap all government and taxation at annual cpi, and vote every incumbent out of office at your first opportunity.

Problem Solved!

Andrew Allan,

How do you define "works for a living"...

do you mean to say that a plumber with 3 employees has more responsibilities and thus deserves a higher salary than a school superintendent who oversees hundreds?

For the "government fatcats" making $200k but should be making $75...how do you feel about private CEO's who make in the $400's for comparable responsibilities?

Why would a college-educated person choose to work in the public sector if available salaries are far under private sector opportunities?

What does that say about the experience of a person who would take such a salary?

Why is it unfair for someone to seek employment with benefits? What opportunities did you miss to find a better job?

We don't need the junk in our constitution. If we want smaller local governments, all we need to do is to elect politicians who will keep them small.

03:14 - My goodness. Aren't you the twisty-turny wordsmith. But let me respond.

Yes, I absolutely do feel that CEO's making not just in the $400's - but often in the millions- are grossly overpaid. Likewise, I feel the government fatcats (actually I said bureaucrats, but your word is better) are similarly overpaid, considering the stagnation, decline or even loss of wages by people working in the real world.

Re your private sector opportunities comment, there's no comparison. Government employees get pensions.

College educated? Big whoop. You want a medal to go with that?

And you're absolutely correct that I did try to become a member of the little clique called government as many others reading this little blog also have. So you're saying what? That I'm unworthy and thus should be happy to pay exhorbitant salaries to loafers that don't deserve them?

CHOP AT THE TOP! CHOP AT THE TOP! CHOP AT THE TOP!

3:36

never said you were unworthy. Tried to get you to compare apples to apples.

Plenty of private sector employees get nice pensions too. Depends on where you work. Ask all the retired Detroit autoworkers...Ask the Chrysler and GM Boards...

So, if you had a choice about who gets hired to work in government - would you want someone college educated or not for the management positions? That was my point...

and, if one is given the opportunity for a college education, and turns it down, can they then complain later about wage and income differences?

Rollback taxes and spending to 2002 levels, expand SOH to all property both residential and commercial, cap all government and taxation at annual cpi, and vote every incumbent out of office at your first opportunity.

Problem Solved!

[Local Government is Your Government!]

4:11 As I said before and "Andrew Allen" proves, these tax cut fanatics are all demagogues, and want to destroy government only so that their business can turn a bigger profit. They don't want anyone telling them they need to do what's responsible. They want to pollute, they want to destroy wetlands, they want to build right out to the water's edge and then dredge and fill and build some more. They want to pave over our state and they don't want you to have any say through your local government about their right to do so.

Problem Solved!

Visit
http://www.floridataxwatch.org/aboutus/officers.php

and look at who sits on their board of directors. Big Business cronies - one and all.

Problem Solved!

4:29 - You're nitwit. Nuf said.

4:11 - C'mon now. Apples to apples? Plumber to school superintendent?

And re "plenty of private sector employees get nice pensions too. ." You must be from a different time and a different place." I'm talking about the people living and working right here right now. If you want to make sure I make union wages and a pension right here in Pinellas county, I'll have a listen.

As for being college educated, my point is that college diplomas today are a dime a dozen. My buddy's pre-law son just enlisted in the Navy because there's no opportunity out here.

If you are a government employee, I apologize if I've hurt your feelings, but you appear to be living in la la land. And I repeat. CHOP AT THE TOP.

[Concerned Taxpayer]

People, you can't have it both ways! On one hand, you say to tax big business because the "trickle down" effect doesn't work. On the flip side, you advocate the bailout to help the people. Um...isn't that bailing out big business and helping the people through the "trickle down" effect? Also, who do you think will pay your 50% corporate tax increase? Do you actually think that the big bad companies will pay it? No way...companies are inanimate and it is the consumers who pay. But you keep buying into the "big bad company theory" and see who ends up paying in the end. I assure you, it will be the average citizen just trying to get by.

4:50

If you can't find union wage and pension in Pinellas, and that's what you want, go elsewhere and search.

Do you put money away in an IRA? a 401K? does your employer offer those benefits, and if not, do you have the option to work elsewhere?

If college diplomas are a dime a dozen, then why do only 25% of americans have them?

if your buddy's son has a college degree, why did he enlist? why not ROTC? OCS?

[Steve, Lutz, FL]

I was one of the participants in the above press conference, and the third to sign it (Kimberly was the second). I completely support it. To answer some of the uninformed accusations here, I will provide some facts:

I am retired military; I am not a tool of business. My retirement pay increases by the CPI. Why should local governments--which are simply providers of services which we pay for--be able to UNILATERALLY increase taxes at a rate greater than population growth and CPI? If they provide greater services, all this amendment requires is that they tell us taxpayers what they want an increase for, and then we vote on it. If sufficient voters agree that it is worth the additional tax, it passes and we get what we want. Simple, easy, and it leaves it up to those who receive and pay for the services the local government provides.

Second, this IS a cap, statewide local government spending has grown by 112% in the last ten years. Were this amendment in place, they could not have increased spending by more than about 55% without our approval. That is a cap.

On a purely personal level, since my retirement pay is increased by the CPI, the difference is essentially a pay cut. I think I should be able to have a say when they up and decide my retirement pay should be cut.

Bottom line, this amendment does not prevent local governments from spending more, it only requires they ASK first.

Amen, and well said, Steve.

Everyone must live within their means including government.

"yes, in regards to if the amendment passes...however, let's say a majority of Levy voters reject the amendment and a majority of Hillsborough voters support it (with Hillsborough having far higher numbers of voters), because it is a statewide amendment, Levy citizens would be subjected to the whim of Hillsborough voters..."

If the Levy county citizens have no problem with their county's choice to increase their budget by more, they should have no problem getting out to vote ok for that, right? All it would take to override this amendment is a vote; what's the problem there?

[Steve, Lutz, FL]

Omega83
Regarding:
>>As it pertains to local government, decisions should remain with the local voter...there would then be no need for such an amendment<<

This amendment does exactly that: Only Levy voters would vote on the Levy County budget, Hillsborough voters would have nothing to do with it. Hillsborough County voters would vote on the Hillsborough County budget, etc.

This amendment only says that Levy County must put its budget on the ballot in Levy County.

Does that help?

Why tie government spending to inflation? Inflation always goes up. My income doesn't always go up. Why should government spending be any different than my spending? I can only spend based on what I earn, let's limit government the same way. The government already collects information about income, let's limit government to the incomes earned within its borders.

To the "Blame the GOP" Kool-Aid drinker, what did the Democrat Congress do to avert the current financial melt down? Thinking voting party ticket is going to get us out of this mess is going to leave you just as disappointed as all those who voted the GOP in the last time. They certainly stopped acting like Republicans once they got power as have the Democrats even though they only got power in the legislature. Tell me this, how are they doing at eliminating earmarks like they promised?

To the "reducing taxes is a conspiracy" poster, do you have any evidence of a conspiracy or do you just like the narrative? What specific "deregulation" resulted in the current financial panic and how? Or do you just believe more central control of our economy is always better? That worked out so well in the USSR, Cuba, and everywhere else it's been tried it's no wonder you're such a fan of it now.