Here's The Aug. 28 Chat -- Read A Transcript

In today's weekly live chat here on TroxBlog, we had a little discussion about the merits and demerits of the Electoral College, sparked by my retired colleague Martin Dyckman's column the other day. I hung in there arguing for the existing scheme, but some readers were skeptical. We also talked about the pending grand jury report in Pinellas County, the "super homestead" tax exemption on the Jan. 29 statewide ballot, and whether the media do enough to cover local elections.

To see what folks had to say in today's chat, or to add your own thoughts after the fact, click on the "Comments" link of this announcement a few lines below. You'll see what everyone has had to say, and a form for you to add your own question or remarks.

Thanks to everyone who took part or stopped by today, and I hope to see you back at next week's chat. I'm also thinking about more "themed" chats in the future, dealing with particular subjects, and about having a guest sit in to answer questions... suggestions welcome!

Comments

[Howard Troxler]

Let's start with a couple of comments pre-filed via e-mail. A reader disagrees with my column from the other day that warned about depending on gambling revenue to run the state of Florida:

DISAGREE 1000% ON YOUR COLUMN ON CASINOS $500,000,000 A YEAR WILL GO
A LONG WITH SCHOOLS IN FLORIDA ANS HUNDREDED OF JOBS.
I KNOW THAT JEB WAS AGAINST CASINO BUT THE LONGER IS OUT OF OFFICE
THE MORE WE FIND OUT HE WAS NOT THE GREAT GOVERNOR AS PEOPLE THINK
-- GoneAgain2

[Howard Troxler]

GoneAgain, thanks for the comment. Most of the comments I got on that column were in agreement with you. As I said in the column, I'm not opposed to casino gambling -- heck, I'll probably go -- but it is a bad way to run the public sector. Instead of being better off, we will be worse off in the long run, as we were with the Florida Lottery, which we created to "help education."

[Howard Troxler]

Here's a pre-filed comment about the Electoral College:

I hope you read the Aug. 27 editorial by Martin Dyckman. He seems to think this system has outlived its usefulness to the community and I agree, as I did some time ago. Perhaps he has shed some enlightenment to you. It is hard to believe 11 States could elect the President with an overwelming majority voting otherwise. It makes voting seem like an exercise in futility on the national level. -- Tom S. Brown

[Howard Troxler]

Dear Mr. Brown, Martin and I have disagreed about this over the years. I still believe in a federal government and that the name of our nation means exactly what it says -- a union of states. It is terribly misleading to complain that "only 11 states'' can elect a president in the Electoral College, when even FEWER can do it by direct vote. In fact, California, Florida, Texas and New York, if they wished, could gang up and practically dictate a president to the rest of the nation. The Electoral College makes iT HARDER for that to happen, not easier. In recent years I have thought more about the compromise of awarding electoral votes by congressional district, with the "bonus" of each state's two votes for its two U.S. senators going to the winner of the popular vote.

[Ron]

Howard, You're right on about the Electoral College. The current setup insures that small, less populated states are not ignored.

[Ron]

Just wondering if any of your readers are checking for the "Made in China" label and avoiding these products. The recent rash of sub-standard and potentially poisonous products coming from China makes you wonder about their quality standards (If there are any).

[Howard Troxler]

Ron, thanks for the comment. I have noticed over the years that folks tend to view the Electoral College issue based on whether they think it will help their side.

In 2000, a week before the election, some folks thought Bush might win the popular vote but Gore the Electoral College. How my Democratic friends were defending it! A week later, it was Gore who had won the popular vote and Bush the electoral votes, and the roles were reversed...

I do think a direct popular election would create a blue-state bias in the long run... smaller red states, beware...

[Howard Troxler]

I remember as a kid, in the late years of the baby boom, how "Made In Japan" was the standard crack that one made about substandard consumer goods. That was before Japan kicked our tails into automobiles in the '70s and in electronic goods following that... the old joke is long dead and in fact makes no sense to most folks.

But at least "made in Japan" didn't mean it might KILL you...

[Howard Troxler]

Re: China: I would like to know more about how much of what has happened has been BECAUSE of the government, and how much has happened because of the LACK of the health and safety standards that we have in this country...

[Howard Troxler]

Here's a pre-filed question about the waiting period in Pinellas County, while a grand jury report remains secret and those mentioned in it get a chance to respond:

how come all of the clowns who testified get to edit and approve the part of the report about them? Since when is public record allowed to be edited by the persons being investigated? Who makes up the rules for the Grand Jury? I guess the same guys and gals that are usually called before it, huh? -- Larry

[Ron]

Gee Howard, I missed a couple of weeks, and now that I'm back, it seems everyone else is gone.
I also wondered about the Chinese government, but I'm not real big on conspiracy theories.

[Howard Troxler]

Dear Larry, since it's not a criminal indictment, but apparently a critical report, I suppose it's not unlike giving the subjects of an audit a chance to respond to the auditors' findings. I do not mind the waiting period so much. They don't get to "edit" it unilaterally either, only to object to the court at anything they want to argue is unfair. But if any of the parties involved in the government attempt to keep it secret longer than that reasonable period, I would think that would look pretty bad, and I would question their fitness to keep serving in the government.

[Ron]

Do you think the Super Homestead will pass? Based on what I've read on some blogs and people I've talked to, there seems to be a lot of ignorance regarding the current SOH cap. It seems a lot of people think they will lose it.

[Howard Troxler]

Well, these chat days in general have had a steadily rising readership (viewership?), but it also depends on how good a plug I get on the main page, www.tampabay.com.

My sense is that most folks do not PLAN the chat as part of their day, but are willing to drop by if they happen to see a link on the web site.

I kinda dread asking this -- I mean, Ron, what if you and I are the only two people here? -- but if anybody else just wants to say "hi" in a comment, that'd be nice...

And if you want to bring up an entirely unrelated topic and are wondering whether this is the right place, heck, give it a shot...

[Howard Troxler]

Re: super homestead and Save Our Homes -- well, they WILL lose it if it passes and they opt for the new deal... but of course they have the option of keeping the old deal too.

Interesting dynamic unfolding on that Jan. 29 election. For one thing, if the Democrats' presidential primary doesn't "count" AND the candidates kind of downplay Florida, will Democratic interest be down -- making Republicans more likely to vote -- and if so, are Republicans more likely to vote for the bigger tax break?

The Realtors are spending money for it and so are some business groups. They hope that "super homestead" will give a boost to home sales -- and why shouldn't it? In the short term, you DO get a much bigger tax break from buying a different house, instead of the old, flat, $25,000 homestead exemption.

[Howard Troxler]

Regular reader 20/20, as part of a longer and interesting comment posted to the prevous blog item, ends with this question:

What might your thoughts be as to the responsibility, and the current level, of our local media’s coverage of local campaigns and debates?

[Elizabeth]

I have never been able to get my head around the Electoral College. We all get to vote but a handfull of good ole boys get to decide if our vote counts? I don't care which side you are on, it doesn't seem democratic to me.

[Howard Troxler]

20/20, I am a state and local guy foremost, so my bias would always be toward more extensive coverage of candidates for local office.

Imagine giving City Council and County Commission candidates the kind of personal scrutiny that a candidate for president (or even governor) gets. Personality profiles, biography, etc...

In some ways that would be even more useful, since local elex are rarely single-issue or even issue-driven.

Interesting that local elex tend to produce candidates who tend to back development, go with the establishment, and so forth, in fairly low-turnout elections....

Local coverage sometimes is somewhat limited to who has raised the most money and what they said at a candidate forum.

So if I was king of the newspaper I would do even more. I do NOT say that to be sniping or undercutting of my colleagues at the paper. They are definitely not just sitting around; they work very hard at trying to tell folks about what is going on at the local level -- look at our uncovering of this Pinellas scandal as one example.

[Howard Troxler]

Elizabeth, thank you for the comment and the observation. You raise another good point that I am willing to make a deal on: I don't think electors should be able to change their vote.

It has only happened in a couple of isolated incidents. But in theory, the Electoral College COULD choose to elect a president other than the one who "won" the most votes in the November election! Some states already have state laws forbidding their electors from this.

That aspect of the College dates back to our founding years, when the Framers -- who were NOT mob-rule Demcrats, but proper Republic types -- still wanted a "safety valve" of a collection of Smart People just in case. It is an anachronism.

[Howard Troxler]

Plenty of time for new voices to raise new topics. I feel a little like a guy who forgot to send out invitations to a birthday party. But since there are just us chickens here, we can talk about anything we want...

[Ron]

The Pinellas County Property Appraisers office has a pretty good tool for calculating the impact of the Super Homestead Exemption. According to their calculations, the Super Homestead would cost me 50K over the next 25 years. This isn't really surprising, since I've been homesteaded since 1997.

[Howard Troxler]

Ron, yep, I get the general impression that super homestead is a better deal in the shorter run. It gives you a bigger tax break TODAY, and you get the most benefit if your tax assessment is fairly current.

The longer you're in your old home, the bigger the jump when it DOES get reappraised to full current value. And the more chance that the new value will outweight any bigger benefit from the "super" homstead exemption, which maxes out at $195,000.

But the short-term benefit still matters. I don't know the average length of time that somebody owns a home, but for anybody who buys and sells within a few years, it's definitely worth considering.

[Mark]

Dear Howard, What makes you say that the grand jury report in the Smith land sale investigation will be critical of the conduct of the witnesses who appeared before it? Mark

[Ron]

I hate to be negative towards your employer, but I'm disappointed in the SPT new political web-site. It would be more informative to just clearly explain each candidates position on issues, rather than just pick random comments and play truth or false. What are your impressions?

[Howard Troxler]

Mark, that is a fair question. The waiting period exists IN CASE IN CASE IN CASE those named in the report feel there is anything in it that they wish to object to. To my knowledge that has not happened (although I don't even know if the existence of an objection would be public either -- shouldn't that objection enjoy the same secrecy?).

So you are right. Now, as just some seat of the pants guessing, I think that if the report said, "This was a good deal for the taxpayers, and we don't think anything at all wrong happened," I would have expected somebody would have said something about it by now.

[Howard Troxler]

Ron, can't we do both? Between now and the primary season I promise you there will be tons of coverage about what the candidates are saying about the various issues. I hope and think that the Politifact site will provide a service while adding some context to the campaign. The give and take of daily news coverage often consists of a lot of "he said, he said" kind of quotations, so I'm glad that the site will try to take a better look at some of their claims.

[Howard Troxler]

(More for Mark) As I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, the grand jury has a lot of discretion. Its report COULD be as limited as saying, "We did not find any laws were broken, the end." It COULD say, "Not only were no laws broken, but we think everybody acted all right here and this is a mountain made out of a molehill." That certainly would be news!

Again, sheer guesswork by me, but I would not be surprised for it to fall somewhere in between, and say something along the lines that the county should have taken greater pains and care in a transaction that raised such questions.

[Mark]

Howard, Thus far I have not been very impressed with the "seat of the pants" guessing that has been going on the Times. As you know, my prediction is quite different. Mark

[Howard Troxler]

A couple minutes left... would anyone else like to chip in?

[Howard Troxler]

And so, our hour passes... as always, I will leave comments open for anyone who would like to add something later.

Thanks to everyone who took part in today's chat. I hope to see you next week, even though it'll be the day after Labor Day.

I also am thinking about some more "themed" chats, as the earlier ones that dealt specifically with issues in front of the Legislature, and also about the idea of having guests sit in with us to answer questions.

Have a great Tuesday and a great rest of the week!

Get back to work Mark... before you end up in front of a Grand Jury for being one of Spratt's lackeys on the whole Smith deal.

Pam would not be happy about that.

[20/20]

Howard,

Sorry I missed the living thread. Got to pay taxes, got to pay insurance… got to work. Thanks for your response to my question. I share your bias as to more coverage of local candidates.

I believe that all candidates should receive the highest degree of scrutiny, regardless of the seat or office level. Perhaps we’d be able to avoid some embarrassing situations, like the Smith deal.

Personally, I believe that the local media (print, radio, and tv) should be required to cover local candidates, campaigns, debates, and forums. Leaving it “…to who has raised the most money” is what’s gotten us into the mess we’re in today.

Understanding, from my perspective mind you, that there is a difference between raising money and receiving money… I’ve seen and met several good, qualified, and honorable candidates who pass on the development and big-business funding (selling out) in order to stay true to their integrity… and therefore can’t compete with the level of propaganda their “well-funded” opponents flood the area with. Subsequently, our seats are filled by real estate investors, developers, builders, politicos, and lawyers, ect… And we wonder how things like the Smith debacle happen… but I lament.

In any case, thanks again for the response… and keep up the good work on behalf of the people you serve. And yes; you do serve the people. We all do in one way or another.

[tomark]

Howard, I’m new to this so bare with me please.

I could be in the wrong location but while reading the Electoral College issue and when you mentioned that you were a state and local guy this topic came to mind.

A one Pinellas City has four districts, and in more than the past dozen years one of the districts receives an appointed representative. Not that there wouldn’t be candidates if a fair election was held, it’s been a practice to let the representative go during the term, appoint one without public notice and rally the larger voting block to reelect the Chosen-One, (the devil you know). The evidence is apparent and the neglect from under-representation is quite clear, the problem we face is how to overcome this obstacle when a whole City votes for individual districts and the media seems to not look close enough to see the original appointments, time and again, and expose the inequity.

Thanks

[Larry]

Well, Howard, the Grand Jury has told us what scoundrels we are dealing with at the highest levels of Pinellas County government, as if we didn't know. I suppose this will cost Jim Smith his job, and well it should.

And I see that folks are starting to take notice that the super homestead is actually a bust unless you are going to be moving around a lot. Folks won't or don't realize that once they surrender that 3% CAP (SOH) they will once again be at the mercy of the Jim Smith's and the illustrious County Commission once again. I know, I know, you can opt to keep SOH. But the fact still remains, I am trapped in my home of 25 years because if I decide to downsize or move, I HAVE to take the new super homestead deal. And a few years from now, no one will be any better off than they were before all the clamor and din that created SOH.

I hope that you, and the SPT, keep this issue before the voters heading up to the January 29th election. Sure the realtors are for it, sure the lawyers are for it, sure the title companies are for it; because they make money from real estate transactions. I also hope that you keep the clowns in Clearwater on the hot seat as well, where they belong. Spratt is untouchable to the voters and Churuti as well. Let's see how the clowns in Clearwater handle those two. I can tell you for an absolute fact, that party affiliation aside, I will not vote for an encumbent "anything". The house needs to be cleaned, and the sooner the better.

Have a nice day.