Posted by NCF912Project
North Central Florida TEA Party
Submitted by: John Gardner
download the PDF
#1 HEALTH CARE SERVICES AMENDMENT
WHAT IT DOES
- Prohibits the passing of a law or rule compelling an individual or employer to purchase, obtain or provide health care coverage
- Prohibits penalties or taxes on individuals or employers who pay directly for health care services
- Prohibits penalties or taxes on health care providers that accept direct payment for their services from individuals or employers
- Prohibits abolishing private market health care coverage by any law or rule
The rest of the amendment is primarily concerned with wording that defines terms that are contained throughout the amendment, none of which alter in any way the basic description of what I have provided above.
PRO
Approval of this amendment would give our state legislators some cover to opt out of the Medicare provision of Obama Care. You should vote for this if you believe that government has no business in compelling us to purchase health care.
CON
If you believe that government sponsored programs are the answer to our state and country?s health care problems, then you should not vote for this.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
In my opinion, if Obama Care is not repealed, then parts of this amendment will be challenged. The Supreme Court basically gave states the right to opt out of the Medicare provision of the law. However, the individual mandate remains, and I am sure a second Obama administration would attack certain provisions of this amendment as being not in compliance with federal law.
#2 VETERANS PROPERTY TAX DISCOUNT
WHAT IT DOES
Extends property tax discounts to all combat disabled veterans currently living in Florida no matter where they resided when they entered military service.
PRO
Some see this as a fairness issue. No matter what place they grew up in, we have veterans who live in Florida now who were disabled in combat while defending our country and its values. Is it not fair to give
them the same discount that combat-disabled veterans that grew up in Florida get? If you agree you should vote for this amendment.
CON
Keep in mind that whenever you grant any type of a property tax exemption to anyone, there will be a revenue price to pay. It is anticipated that local governments would lose about 2.4 million dollars in revenue in fiscal year 2013-14. If that concerns you then you should not approve this amendment.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
I suppose there is a slight chance that if the voters do not approve this amendment there might be an individual who might try to challenge the current exemption in court. In my opinion the case would be weak. States have the power to determine how they obtain revenue, and therefore the power to exempt those they choose, especially if they are backed by the consent of their citizens.
#3 STATE GOVERNMENT REVENUE LIMITATION
WHAT IT DOES
- Replaces current revenue limitation based upon personal income growth with a revenue limitation based upon inflation and population change
- Requires that revenue collected in excess of the limitation be deposited into the budget stabilization (rainy day) fund until that fund reaches its maximum balance
- Authorizes use of funds that exceed the stabilization fund?s maximum balance to be used for support and maintenance of public schools by reducing financial support required from school districts for participation in a state funded education finance program
- If no minimum support from school districts is needed, it allows for excess funds to be returned to tax payers
- Allows the State Legislature to increase future state revenue limitations through a bill passed by a super majority of both houses of the Legislature
- Allows the State Legislature to submit proposed increases to the state revenue limitation to the voters
PRO
In my opinion, this amendment would make it easier for the State Legislature to increase the state revenue limitation. Changing the way the limitation is currently determined would also increase it. Inflation has been increasing slowly but surely, and would certainly allow for an increase in revenue limitation as soon as this amendment would go into effect. So if these things appeal to you, then by all means vote for this amendment. It would make it easy to just vote for it and not have to figure out why all this is necessary. Just approve it, and let our elected officials act in our behalf.
CON
I like to use the KISS (keep it simple stupid) method for explaining things. This amendment is what is wrong with most legislation that is proposed these days in state or federal government. It is just too complicated. When I am given something to vote on, and I do not fully understand it, I usually vote no. Come back to me when you can explain why we need it better. Also I see that there are two options for getting future increases in revenue limitation approved. The State Legislature can vote it in or they may, if they choose, let the voters decide. If you are like me, and don?t mind being bothered with such things, you won?t vote for this amendment. Let them come back with a good reason why the way it is determined needs to be changed, and let the amendment require approval of the voters for any future increase and then they can have my vote.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
This should not be a concern. States are pretty much responsible for their own ways of collecting revenue and how it is used.
#4 PROPERTY TAX LIMITATIONS AMENDMENT
WHAT IT DOES
- Authorizes the Legislature to, by general law, prohibit the increased assessment on homestead and specified non-homestead property when the value of that property is less than the just value of that property on the preceding January 1 (subject to adjustments because of changes or additions to the property)
- Reduces the limitation on annual changes in assessments on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%
- Authorizes the Legislature to, by general law, provide an additional temporary homestead exemption for persons acquiring homestead property who have not owned homestead property in the 3 previous calendar years
- a) Outlines provisions for calculating the temporary exemption and specifies that the property owner is not exempted from school district levies
- b) Outlines provisions for the gradual reduction of this temporary exemption over a 5 year period
PRO
There are many aspects of this amendment that are going to appeal to a great many of our citizens. Where shall I begin? If the value of your home has taken a hit and yet your property tax bill still looks like your home is worth what it used to be, you might think that this amendment is long overdue. If you are considering buying a home for the first time, that additional tax exemption part of the bill will be appealing to you. People in the real estate business will probably like that part of the amendment too, since it might stimulate the real estate market. Owners of commercial property will probably appreciate the part that will reduce annual assessment increases from 10% to 5%. People that just don?t like taxes at all (does that leave anybody out) may see any reduction of taxes as a good thing. So if you fall in one of those categories (did I leave anybody out) you are probably going to vote yes for this amendment. There have been some straw polls conducted around the state concerning just this amendment.
Generally speaking, the majority of citizens seem to favor it.
CON
This amendment tries to do too much. It should have been broken down into three amendments not only for simplicity?s sake (which would be a good reason all by itself), but also to allow each major part to be considered on its own merits. Remember if you vote for this amendment, you get every provision, not just the parts you like. I mentioned in the PRO section of this breakdown the categories of people who I think will like this amendment. I think it only fair to point out a category of people who I think will hate this amendment. Hate is a strong word, but if you are a local elected official trying to maintain services for the community, and keep his/her budget under control, then you are probably thinking ? Are they out of their minds? Estimated revenue loss to local communities if this amendment is approved is calculated to be $156.2 million in FY 2013-14 alone. Projected out over 3 years the loss could reach as high as $1 billion according to some sources. Compared to the other tax relief amendments on the November ballot, this one appears to be the most costly, and having more of a negative financial impact on local governments than the other 3 amendments combined. Opponents like to also point out that when revenue is lost a taxing entity usually finds another way to raise revenue. So other folks are going to end up paying to cover the lost revenue. No one likes taxes but it appears that everyone likes services. Services cost money. If your local government is struggling as it is to keep the budget balanced, or may be struggling if this amendment is approved, then you might just want to vote no on this amendment.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
I do not foresee a problem in this area no matter how the vote on it turns out.
#5 CHANGES TO THE STATE SUPREME COURT SYSTEM
WHAT IT DOES
- Completely changes the structure of the state Supreme Court system by splitting it into two divisions (criminal and civil) composed of five justices in each division. If approved this amendment would require the Governor to appoint three more justices to the state?s high court.
- Requires all high court appointees to be confirmed by the state Senate.
- Requires the Judicial Qualifications Commission to allow the state House to review its files upon request even if no impeachment action against a judge has actually been initiated.
- Allows repeal of a high court rule (not a ruling/decision) by a simple majority instead of the two-thirds vote currently required.
PRO
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is strongly against this amendment. Some supporters of this amendment claim that it will make the state judicial system more efficient. Other supporters claim that splitting up the court into two divisions would speed up the reviewing of cases which would be especially important in death penalty cases.
CON
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is strongly against this amendment. Some who oppose this amendment say that it is more about politics than anything else. The vote to put this amendment before the people was highly partisan, with Republicans favoring the changes and Democrats generally not in
favor of it. Some opposers also think that these changes are somehow tied to the anger generated by the striking down of two amendments from the 2010 ballot by the state Supreme Court.
There are a lot of changes that this amendment would cause to happen. Remember citizens that if you vote for this amendment you get all the changes not just the ones you like. So if there is any change that you do not care for then a no vote would be prudent. Do we really need to completely restructure our high court? Do we really need to appoint 3 more judges to it? Is it absolutely important that the state Senate approve all the high court appointees? Wouldn?t that make the appointments more political and polarizing than ever? If you think our high court system is in need of such changes then perhaps a yes vote is called for, but if you don?t think our high court system is broken then why try to fix it?
CONSTITUTIONALITY
In my opinion, I do not find a constitutional problem with any of the proposals of this amendment.
Having said that I would also remind citizens that the ACLU strongly opposes this amendment and if it passes that organization will go over the entire amendment with a magnifying glass to see if they can challenge it.
#6 FLORIDA ABORTION AMENDMENT
WHAT IT DOES
1) Prohibits the use of public funding for abortions or for health benefits coverage that includes coverage of abortion.
2) Provides exceptions as follows:
a) When required by federal law
b) In the case of rape
c) In the case of incest
d) In the case of life endangerment, or physical injury/illness/disorder that would arise from the pregnancy itself.
PRO
This would keep public funds from having to be spent on a lot of abortions, and abortions can be costly. Ask Planned Parenthood. This amendment would not try to outlaw abortions or challenge Roe vs. Wade in any way. If you agree that your tax dollars should not be spent on funding abortions, then by all means vote yes on this amendment.
CON
Opposers of this amendment say it is limiting a woman?s choices when faced with a pregnancy that she does not want but can?t afford to properly abort. If you are on the pro choice side of the abortion argument then you will probably agree with that point of view, and be opposed to the amendment also.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
The exception placed in the amendment ?When required by federal law? makes this amendment pretty much challenge proof. Keep in mind that Obamacare requires that health care coverage providers include coverage provisions for abortion. Passage of this amendment does not present a serious court challenge on constitutional grounds.
#7 WHICH HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WAS REMOVED FROM THE NOVEMBER BALLOT
#8 THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AMENDMENT
WHAT IT DOES
- Changes 125 year old wording in the state constitution
- Prohibits the denial of any program benefit, funding, or other support to any individual or entity on the basis of religious identity or belief
PRO
No one can argue with the fact that persons of faith and religious organizations do many good works that benefit the citizens of Florida. Religious organizations support hospitals, schools, adoption agencies, and other benevolent activities such as charitable work with the poor and prison visitation programs. Currently the wording in the state constitution prevents any government assistance to such religious organizations or activities. Supporters of this amendment say that its approval would allow some badly needed assistance and would remove the discrimination against religious organizations and activities that currently exist in our state constitution.
CON
At first glance this amendment would seem to be a no brainer. After all who could be opposed to religious freedom? Hmm, you?d be surprised. This amendment if approved could open up a can of worms. How so you might ask. We could have all kinds of religious entities scrambling for taxpayer dollars, and some you might not be so eager to fund. Take a look at the 125 year old wording in the Blaine Amendment that supporters of this amendment take exception to:
?No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution.?
What exactly do you find objectionable about that wording? For longer than 125 years religious persons and organizations have been doing good works without the benefit of public funding. They do what they can with what they have, and will continue to do so even if this amendment is not approved by the voters. When you accept government funds, be prepared to accept the rules. regulations, and restrictions that come with them. One of the opposers of this amendment is Kris Anne Hall. Some of our NCF Tea Party members are familiar with her work. She is a hardly a radical, and certainly not anti-religion. She points out that approval of this amendment would have some unintended consequences such as:
?Silence religious organizations and their beliefs in order to receive government funding.?
?Force taxpayers to fund ALL RELIGIOUS activity to include Islamic, Satanic, and cult religious activity.?
?It will give government the ability to promote religious activities through government funding, directly undermining the true principle of separation of church and state; the fundamental principle that government has no place in the church.?
What appears to be a simple amendment supporting religious freedom might turn out to be a deceptive can of worms down the road. If you agree with that then voting no to this amendment would appear to be the logical choice.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
This is one of those amendments that if approved will be looked at very closely by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The wording should stand up to constitutional challenge, but in the actions this amendment might allow there could be all kinds of problems. Let?s say that Catholic charities received some kind of benefits to assist in their work with the poor. A religious sect goes to court claiming that it does the same type of charitable work and was denied assistance, and on and on it could go.
#9 SURVIVING SPOUSE PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION
WHAT IT DOES
- Authorizes the Legislature to provide Homestead Property Tax Relief to the surviving spouses of the following:
- a) A veteran who died from service-connected causes while on active duty
- b) First responders who died in the line of duty
- Defines first responders as law enforcement officers, correctional officers, firefighters, emergency medical technicians, or paramedics.
PRO
Being a compassionate people, a lot of us want to make things easier for the surviving spouses of our veterans and first responders. This amendment would certainly provide some financial relief for those spouses. This amendment was sponsored by our Legislature and received unanimous support. Of all the tax exemption relief amendments on this year?s ballot, this one would have the least financial impact on revenue. The amendment does not specify the exact percentage of relief that would be provided, leaving that detail up to the Legislature if the amendment is approved. I am sure surviving spouses that could claim such an exemption would be grateful for whatever financial benefit the approval of this amendment might provide. If you believe surviving spouses of these veterans and first responders should get such a break then you should vote for this amendment.
CON
Keep in mind that whenever you grant any type of a property tax exemption to anyone, there will be a revenue price to pay. Its estimated cost is $0.6 million in fiscal year 2013-14. If that concerns you then you should not approve this amendment.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
There is little or no chance that this amendment would be challenged as unconstitutional. I say little or no because there might be someone out there who thinks this amendment discriminates against surviving spouses of standup comedians. Unfortunately, that is the kind of world we live in today.
#10 THE TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION INCREASE
WHAT IT DOES
- Increases the exemption from ad valorem taxation on tangible personal property (TPP) from $25,000 to TPP that is less than $50,000
- Authorizes the Legislature to allow counties and municipalities to provide additional exemptions by local ordinance subject to general law
PRO
Don?t worry if you don?t know what TPP is. Just ask someone who owns/operates a business in our state and they can probably tell you all about it. I am sure our Governor really likes this amendment. He has been trying to attract more business to Florida since he got elected. Supporters of this amendment claim that because of the current state of our economy, any help we can give to businesses, especially small businesses, is a good thing. Governor Scott would probably tell you that reducing tax burdens on business attracts more business to our state. So if you are pro business, and/or agree with the supporters of this amendment, then I guess they can count on you voting yes for amendment #10.
CON
Keep in mind that whenever you grant any type of a property tax exemption to anyone, there will be a revenue price to pay. It is estimated that the loss in local revenue would be $20.1 million in fiscal year 2013-14. Some opponents of this amendment like to point out that Florida already has one of the lowest tax burdens in the country. Others say that the provision to allow counties and municipalities to grant even larger TPP tax exemptions is even more problematic. Larger more financially sound taxing entities would be in a better position to offer these additional tax exemptions.That would put smaller taxing entities with smaller tax bases in a difficult competitive position when it comes to attracting new business. Still others like to point out that when revenue is lost a taxing entity usually finds another way to raise revenue. So other folks are going to end up paying to cover the lost revenue. No one likes taxes but it appears that everyone likes services. Services cost money. If your local government is struggling as it is to keep the budget balanced, or may be struggling if this amendment is approved, then you might just want to vote no on this amendment.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
I do not foresee a problem in this area no matter how the vote on it turns out.
#11 ADDITIONAL HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR LOW INCOME SENIORS
WHAT IT DOES
Authorizes the Legislature to allow counties and municipalities to grant an additional homestead tax exemption equal to the assessed value of the homestead property to senior citizens who meet the following criteria:
- Owns real estate homestead property with a value of $250,000 or less
- Has maintained permanent residence on the property for not less than 25 years
- Is at least 65 years old
4) Has a low annual household income as defined by general law (most sources I have researched indicate that this would currently be income that does not exceed $27,030)
PRO
Introduced by two legislators from south Florida, this amendment was unanimously supported by both houses of the Legislature. Being the compassionate people we are, we don?t want our senior citizens to lose their homes because they can?t pay their property taxes. Therefore, this amendment tugs at our heart strings and makes us want to vote yes. Keep in mind that all it does is authorize the Legislature to allow counties and municipalities to grant the exemptions. It would still be up to those taxing entities to decide whether to grant such a revenue reducing exemption. So if you think it is a good idea then you should vote for this amendment, and then pressure your local taxing authorities to take further action if the amendment is passed.
CON
Keep in mind that whenever you grant any type of a property tax exemption to anyone, there will be a revenue price to pay. It is estimated that the loss in local revenue would be $9.1 million in fiscal year 2014-15. No one likes taxes but it appears that everyone likes services. Services cost money. If your local government is struggling as it is to keep the budget balanced then you might just want to help them out by taking the pressure of whether or not to grant such an exemption out of their hands by voting no on this amendment.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
I do not see this as a concern.
#12 CHANGES TO STUDENT REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE STATE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
WHAT IT DOES
- Directs the Board of Governors of the state university system (hereafter referred to as the Board) to create a new council made up of the student body presidents from all 11 state universities.
- Directs this new council to appoint/elect a Chairperson
- That Chairperson would then become a student body representative on the Board and replace the current representative which has been the President of the Florida Student Association (FSA)
PRO
I believe most citizens would agree that it makes sense to have student representation on a Board that oversees the state university system. Supporters of this amendment say that it would provide for a better representation for the students than the current method. This amendment was proposed by the State Legislature and had overwhelming support. A case can be made that all student body presidents would be able to have input to the Chairperson of the council created and therefore a broader view on issues concerning state university students might be represented by this method as opposed to having just one person?s (President of the FSA) input.
CON
Some of those opposed to this amendment say that it was introduced for political purposes because some state politicians now see the FSA as being too liberal to represent state university students. This is more government. More government usually means more costs to the tax payer. So I guess it all comes down to whether or not you think this new amendment would be a better way to represent student interests on the Board or not, and if you do, would it be worth any additional cost to implement and maintain such a system.
CONSTITUTIONALITY
There should be no concerns in this area.
download the PDF
Submitted by: John Gardner
North Central Florida TEA Party
Source: http://northcentralflorida912project.org/our-blog/2012/10/11/2012-florida-amendment-voter-guide/
Tom Daley Leryn Franco The Campaign Kinesio tape NBA randy travis lakers
