Fourth in a series
This amendment would replace the existing state revenue limitation with a more restrictive one. The existing limitation is based on “personal income growth.” Revenues of school districts and local governments would not be affected, since both the proposed and current limitations only apply to state government revenues. The amendment would:
Cap the growth in state spending at no more than the combined rate of inflation and population growth.
Place excess tax collections in reserve, to be used to fund public schools during lean years or to be refunded to taxpayers.
Prepare for future financial emergencies by allowing the Legislature to override the amendment with a super-majority three-fifths vote.
Government spending has grown much too quickly for too long, far outstripping the growth rate of the private sector. If this amendment had been in effect in the years before the recent recession, state spending would have grown more slowly than it actually did.
The old state limitation became ineffective because it didn’t limit the rapid increases in state spending, no matter which political party controlled the Legislature or held the governor’s office.
The formula for this new cap would allowFlorida’s government to keep pace with growth and cost increases for goods and services, while putting a lid on excessive revenues.
Why would state government need to grow more quickly than inflation and population growth combined? It doesn’t. And this amendment would assure it won’t.
Under Amendment 3, state revenues collected in excess of the cap would have to be deposited into the Budget Stabilization Fund until the fund reaches its maximum balance, which would be capped at 10 percent of the prior year’s general revenue collections. When the BSF reaches its cap, excess revenues would have to be used to reduce local school property taxes. If these taxes don’t apply, excess revenues would be refunded to taxpayers.
Opponents say putting a stricter cap on state spending would tie the hands of future legislators. However, since the Legislature can override the revenue limitation with a super-majority vote, this persuasively counters those concerns.
The Palm Beach Post, squealing predictably like a fat pig, has asserted itself on behalf of its brethren in the mainstream media, urging a no vote on this amendment.
Don’t listen to the hyperbole. Amendment 3 could have the effect of preparing state government to cope better with future economic recessions, by permitting the Legislature to temporarily suspend the revenue cap in extended financial emergencies.
Vote Yes on Amendment 3 if you want to reasonably curb state spending by placing a more effective cap on state government tax revenues, without hurting local schools.
See these related articles:
On Florida Amendment 1 – Vote yes
On Florida Amendment 4 – Vote yes
About John R. Smith
Loading ...
This stupid idea was tried with disastrous results in CO. It was subsequently, and sensibly repealed. FL can avoid this by mistake by just voting NO. As indeed should be the vote for all the proposed amendments – NO! NO! NO!
No to the so-called the ‘Religious Freedom’ amendment to reverse the FL Constitutional protection for separation of church and state, which would give tax-payer money to religious schools. Vote YES to retain all Supreme Court Justices to stop felon Gov. Scott taking control of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of FL government
Ah, a big government liberal who loves the idea of stealing my money to spend. The only part of this amendment I disagree with is the putting aside of any excess for schools. The school system wastes enough of my money on teachers’ and staff salaries as is. We spend more money per student in this country that anywhere else in the world and we have among the world’s best paid teachers and worst educated children. See any connection yet? The teachers unions don’t give a d*mn about the kids only their income. Note I said UNIONS, I’m guessing most teachers actually care about the kids but their unions care only about power and union dues.
Any excess tax revenues should be returned directly to the citizens from whence it came. If THEY then want to waste it on teacher’s union benefits then THEY should vote to do so separately.