Thank you, Judge Francis, for giving us more Florida political drama. I had expected the excitement this week to be about the PIP deal and whether there would be a tiny special session on Thursday or Friday to pass the compromise before PIP expired. But, no, instead, out of nowhere, Judge Francis drops a tactical nuke on Florida politics.
Where to start? How about with timing? If this decision had been made a week earlier, Democrats may have pounced on it as a way to delay the primary vote until Feb 5th. Doing it would be easy: foul up, or threaten to, any compromise in the legislature over re-wording the ballot language until October 31st passes, at which point the 90 day deadline on language changes is reached. The legislature, if it wanted to keep an early vote on this amendment (and they do! Otherwise it'll compete with whatever the independent tax and budget commission comes up with for the general election), would have to reschedule the primary + referendum election to February or later. I dunno if Democrats would actually do that - it would take a lot of political capital that the Democrats haven't been very good at accumulating - but it would resolve the early primary problem.
If the decision had been made after October 12th, when the special session is scheduled to end, the legislature would have had to schedule another special session to change the wording, which would have been ridiculous. So the legislature is fortunate that the decision has come down now, and they can decide between rewording it or appealing the decision.
Before getting to that dilemma, lets talk about smear politics. The lawsuit that's caused all this was started by Westin Mayor Eric Hersh. You may remember the news about him starting the lawsuit a few months back - he was slammed by state Republican leaders, especially, if I remember correctly, Pruitt. Well, he's been hammered since then by waves of tv commercials, mailers, and telephone calls to his constituents over this lawsuit. By who? Good question; apparently no one is quite sure who's behind it. However, the trail of political stooges leads us right back to Pruitt and Rubio. So it's clear that the Republican leadership has been doing some very underhanded things to prevent this decision from happening. But now it has. So what next?
The leadership has two options available, and it's basically an either/or situation. On the one hand, they can crack open the amendment and revise the wording. That opens the flood gates though, and big business is eager to get some cuts for businesses in there. So if the special session also reworks the amendment, who knows what will happen. But maybe that's a good thing! The other option is to appeal the decision and take it to the Supreme Court. If they can't get a decision by the Supreme Court before the special session is over, and the Court then rules against them, thats it; there's no referendum short of some drastic maneuvers (like changing the primary date). Not surprisingly, in my mind, Pruitt is pushing for an appeal rather than rewording. Why is that not surprising? Of the three main actors, Crist, Rubio, and Pruitt, Pruitt has the least to lose, as this post on The Buzz details. He's not tied up in this like Crist, who came out swinging for it last week (bet he regrets that now), or Rubio, who has put a lot of his political capital into getting this thing through. Plus, Pruitt (and maybe Rubio, given his recent comments to business leaders) might realize how terrible the tax amendment really is, and actually be for the amendment failing.
They wouldn't be the only Republicans. As I wrote about before, a number of Republicans, including Sen. Lisa Carlton, #2 in the Senate, have publicly come out against the amendment, even though they voted for it in session. They didn't really get the public lambasting they deserve for voting for a crappy amendment they knew, or figured out quickly, was bad, but they probably will if they proceed to vote for a ballot rewording that doesn't change the basics of the amendment. The Republican leadership might not be able to get the votes it needs for a simple rewording! All it takes is about 20 Republicans in the House or 6 or 7 Republicans in the Senate to vote against it to kill the amendment. Carlton and other Republicans who have since spoken out against the amendment will have to choose between keeping to their word or doing a serious flipflop - again.
That's only if the ballot language is merely reworded. More likely, opening up the process to reword it will result in actual changes to the amendment. In as much as I'm for good public policy, I see this as a good thing. They ought to throw in a change to how properties are assessed, for example. However, that's a whole bag of worms. I doubt the Leadership can get major compromises on both budget cuts and the tax amendment in the same week and a half special session. Oh, and fix PIP.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
PIP politics
Rubio is now claiming to working towards a PIP solution. Actually, more infuriatingly, he's saying that we must work towards a PIP solution to prevent political "procrastination." Its amazing that he's so gung ho about it now, considering that he wasn't willing to put PIP on the agenda of the mirage special session that was supposed to start on the 18th.
This whole PIP situation is frustrating. Democrats, particularly Rep. Kriseman, have been pushing for a PIP extension for months. They've been cooking up all kinds of ideas on how to get PIP on the official agenda of the special session (both the decoy and the real one), including some obscure procedure that would force a special session on a particular subject ( i.e., PIP). Democrats have mostly wanted to just extend PIP and work out a compromise in the next regular session (Rep. Gelber still wants to do just that). However, they haven't actually taken up a leadership role in forcing the legislature to take up the issue (writing letters hardly counts). If any Democrat has done that, it's Alex Sink, who somehow managed to push the issue without being overtly political about it. However, it's coming back to haunt Democrats now, as Republicans seem to be hosting negotiations that will produce something that Rubio can bless. Democrats had several opportunities to make PIP their issue, and, if these negotiations work, could have claimed credit on the result.
To be fair, both Democrats and Republicans have been agitating for some kind of PIP extension. But that's not including the leadership and their lieutenants, like Rep. Bogdanoff and Sen. Posey, who seem to have been more part of the problem than the solution for their inability to compromise. The leadership must have realized that they could have mutiny on their hands if they didn't get something done; hence, these negotiations.
Don't feel too good about the apparent progress, though: what they mean by "negotiation" is having a few dozen lobbyists from the various interests in the same room writing a bill. That bill will probably be released just before the special session, not giving potential opponents enough time to figure out how many different ways it screws them. It'll pass, because all the good little Republican boys and girls will do what Rubio and Pruitt tell them to do. And when the media, who will actually read the bill, start reporting on what a turd they passed, many of them will start to publicly equivocate or back down. At least, thats what happened in the last special session, and probably whats going to happen with the budget cuts. Maybe it's a bit cynical, but consider all that my official prediction on what will happen... except for that part about a few dozen lobbyists writing the bill - thats true, and its happening right now.
To summarize: 1) Democrats had an opportunity to make this their issue, and dropped the ball. 2) The Republican leadership desperately tried to avoid extending PIP, but now that it seems likely to happen, have positioned themselves to take the credit. 3) The Republican leadership has a definite style of making public policy: closing the door and keeping Democrats, and the public, out of the discussion. 4) That style produces crappy public policy.
This whole PIP situation is frustrating. Democrats, particularly Rep. Kriseman, have been pushing for a PIP extension for months. They've been cooking up all kinds of ideas on how to get PIP on the official agenda of the special session (both the decoy and the real one), including some obscure procedure that would force a special session on a particular subject ( i.e., PIP). Democrats have mostly wanted to just extend PIP and work out a compromise in the next regular session (Rep. Gelber still wants to do just that). However, they haven't actually taken up a leadership role in forcing the legislature to take up the issue (writing letters hardly counts). If any Democrat has done that, it's Alex Sink, who somehow managed to push the issue without being overtly political about it. However, it's coming back to haunt Democrats now, as Republicans seem to be hosting negotiations that will produce something that Rubio can bless. Democrats had several opportunities to make PIP their issue, and, if these negotiations work, could have claimed credit on the result.
To be fair, both Democrats and Republicans have been agitating for some kind of PIP extension. But that's not including the leadership and their lieutenants, like Rep. Bogdanoff and Sen. Posey, who seem to have been more part of the problem than the solution for their inability to compromise. The leadership must have realized that they could have mutiny on their hands if they didn't get something done; hence, these negotiations.
Don't feel too good about the apparent progress, though: what they mean by "negotiation" is having a few dozen lobbyists from the various interests in the same room writing a bill. That bill will probably be released just before the special session, not giving potential opponents enough time to figure out how many different ways it screws them. It'll pass, because all the good little Republican boys and girls will do what Rubio and Pruitt tell them to do. And when the media, who will actually read the bill, start reporting on what a turd they passed, many of them will start to publicly equivocate or back down. At least, thats what happened in the last special session, and probably whats going to happen with the budget cuts. Maybe it's a bit cynical, but consider all that my official prediction on what will happen... except for that part about a few dozen lobbyists writing the bill - thats true, and its happening right now.
To summarize: 1) Democrats had an opportunity to make this their issue, and dropped the ball. 2) The Republican leadership desperately tried to avoid extending PIP, but now that it seems likely to happen, have positioned themselves to take the credit. 3) The Republican leadership has a definite style of making public policy: closing the door and keeping Democrats, and the public, out of the discussion. 4) That style produces crappy public policy.
Friday, September 7, 2007
PIP Session?
The Republican leadership may have thought that canceling/postponing the special session would have killed this PIP issue. However, it looks like a number of lawmakers are agitating for for a special session just for PIP. The Buzz article suggests that there's just a couple of lawmakers appealing for the session, but that number is closer to a dozen. If it turns into a movement, whether it succeeds or not, it will be a major blow to the authoritarian Rubio/Pruitt regime in the statehouse.
Lets hope more lawmakers grow spines and stick out their necks to really challenge the leadership on this issue.
Lets hope more lawmakers grow spines and stick out their necks to really challenge the leadership on this issue.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Secret Negotiations
So Rubio and Pruitt canceled the special session - or, "postponed" it, to use their words. And why did they postpone it?
"The common denominator for productive special sessions is an initial agreement on a framework for action... While there has been tremendous progress, there is still work to be done... We remain confident that an agreement will be reached and that we will have a fall special session."
So, there's no "initial agreement." Have you read anything in the press about about Pruitt and Rubio working towards an agreement? If, like me, you've been reading articles about possible cuts, reform ideas, and committee meetings where department heads present their budget cut proposals, you probably thought that legislators were educating themselves in the past few weeks, in preparation for the big decisions they would have to make in the special session. The press would mention, here and there, that the House wanted to do targeted cuts, and the Senate wanted to just do a uniform 4% cut. But it never mentioned - to my knowledge - that Rubio and Pruitt were trying come up with an "initial agreement" before the special session started.
My take on this is that the Republican leadership was trying to do what it did before in the property tax special session - craft a plan behind the scenes, then shove it through. I have two problems with this. First, cutting the budget should be a public debate. This isn't something that should be concocted in dimly lit, smoke-filled rooms. It ought to be done in the open, so that the public can act and react. Second, this kind of political negotiation produces crappy policy. Look at what came out of the last special session - a terrible "tax cut" which didn't address the main concerns of property owners, only benefited homesteaders, generated a huge amount of partisan politics, and, in the long run, actually increases tax revenue. Including the public - or at least the other party - in negotiations isn't just important as a matter of political morality, its necessary to produce compromises that everyone can agree to.
It appears that Gov. Crist didn't even know about postponement until everybody else did - is he kept out of the loop on these secret negotiations too? If so, that's amazing, especially now that he's put out a pretty comprehensive budget cut/economic stimulus plan. In fact, that he did put out this plan indicates that he's not really part of the Pruitt-Rubio budget cut cabal. So who is coming up with the initial agreement? Maybe Rep. Joe Pickens, who's head of the education council (and therefore supposedly in charge of education cuts): this Naked Politics post was the first indication I had seen that the special session wasn't really set in stone. And who knows who else?
"The common denominator for productive special sessions is an initial agreement on a framework for action... While there has been tremendous progress, there is still work to be done... We remain confident that an agreement will be reached and that we will have a fall special session."
So, there's no "initial agreement." Have you read anything in the press about about Pruitt and Rubio working towards an agreement? If, like me, you've been reading articles about possible cuts, reform ideas, and committee meetings where department heads present their budget cut proposals, you probably thought that legislators were educating themselves in the past few weeks, in preparation for the big decisions they would have to make in the special session. The press would mention, here and there, that the House wanted to do targeted cuts, and the Senate wanted to just do a uniform 4% cut. But it never mentioned - to my knowledge - that Rubio and Pruitt were trying come up with an "initial agreement" before the special session started.
My take on this is that the Republican leadership was trying to do what it did before in the property tax special session - craft a plan behind the scenes, then shove it through. I have two problems with this. First, cutting the budget should be a public debate. This isn't something that should be concocted in dimly lit, smoke-filled rooms. It ought to be done in the open, so that the public can act and react. Second, this kind of political negotiation produces crappy policy. Look at what came out of the last special session - a terrible "tax cut" which didn't address the main concerns of property owners, only benefited homesteaders, generated a huge amount of partisan politics, and, in the long run, actually increases tax revenue. Including the public - or at least the other party - in negotiations isn't just important as a matter of political morality, its necessary to produce compromises that everyone can agree to.
It appears that Gov. Crist didn't even know about postponement until everybody else did - is he kept out of the loop on these secret negotiations too? If so, that's amazing, especially now that he's put out a pretty comprehensive budget cut/economic stimulus plan. In fact, that he did put out this plan indicates that he's not really part of the Pruitt-Rubio budget cut cabal. So who is coming up with the initial agreement? Maybe Rep. Joe Pickens, who's head of the education council (and therefore supposedly in charge of education cuts): this Naked Politics post was the first indication I had seen that the special session wasn't really set in stone. And who knows who else?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)