The following was published in the Tallahassee Democrat on August 21, 2008

With the recent "tax swap" Amendment 5 lawsuit victory at the circuit-court level, there is at least some hope that Floridians will not have to deal with the disastrous consequences of this foolish proposal come November.

Though the Florida Supreme Court will be the rightful final arbiter of this legal question, the legal arguments are distinctly separate from the philosophical question of whether it is a good idea to cut 25 percent to 35 percent of every homeowner's tax bill and replace it with a penny increase in the sales tax; to also cut some sales-tax exemptions and exclusions; and then certainly to impose a dreaded services tax on business transactions.

The standard refrain is: Who isn't in favor of a property-tax cut?

Well, of course, no one in his or her right mind would look a gift horse in the mouth. But most of us also know that neither is there such a thing as a "free lunch."

That is, if you cut more property taxes, surely there will be even more governmental service cutbacks. And if you have more service cutbacks in our current economic downturn, the economy of Florida will surely suffer even more.

Just last week, it was announced that almost 100,000 of our fellow citizens have joined the unemployment ranks here in Florida. This isn't the time to retrench, it's the time to use our tax dollars already appropriated to build roads and schools as Gov. Charlie Crist has called for. Road builders, developers and contractors, among others, will then be able to go back to work. By using nonrecurring revenue for these critical infrastructure needs we will generate new sales-tax dollars for the state's coffers because of the goods and services they must procure in the building process.

For the members of Associated Industries of Florida, however, our concern is really about the twisted thinking that this tax swap incites. Let me explain. You are being asked to vote for a property-tax cut in November, though you wouldn't get the actual benefit until 2011. And this is supposed to stimulate Florida's economy. Huh?

If a property-tax cut is such a great idea, why are we being cruelly asked to wait three years to get the tax break? Why can't we have it now? More importantly, how the heck is a "proposed" tax cut going to help the economy before we get the actual tax cut?

The second fatal flaw is that this amendment sends a dire message to businesses across the land: You'd better wait until 2011 to find out what Florida's new tax structure is before you think about coming here.

This isn't exactly going to make our economic-development professionals sleep well at night, and it makes you and me the unwitting foils, because growth will come to screeching halt for at least the next three years until everything gets hammered out.

In the final analysis, I wouldn't vote for this tax swap simply because I have little faith that government can swap $9.5 billion in property-tax reductions on the one hand and then come up with an identical amount of new taxes on the other.

Even if legislators can do this, wouldn't I just be paying the same amount of taxes — but instead of taking it out of my left pocket, I'm going to be taking it out of my right pocket?

If that is supposed to stimulate our economy, then folks, I suggest we each go buy ourselves a lottery ticket, because we've just been screwed again.

And don't even get me started on "holding education harmless." That now makes the tax swap an $11 billion proposition! Are you willing to believe the government when it promises to protect education dollars year in and year out? If so, I bet you still believe in the tooth fairy.

The real culprit in our property-tax structure is Save Our Homes (SOH). It was allegedly a good idea, but it has had disastrous consequences. Until we have a political leader who is honest enough to tell us that this new "entitlement" is rotten to the core and must be replaced, we can only play along the edges.

Unfortunately, every time the Legislature has tried to fix the problem without touching SOH, the unintended consequences have been no better for us.

Rather than another rush to judgment asking the Legislature to fix the property-tax problem, what we need to do is to commit the legislative time and resources (like we do when it comes reapportionment time) and tackle this issue over the next two years with a recognition that, without removing the 800-pound gorilla from the room (Save Our Homes), we can never be fair and equitable to everyone.

Soon, the time will come when either this proposed amendment is knocked off of the ballot or you will get the chance to vote for this tax swap.

If it is the latter, I just hope you will vote with your eyes open and in an informed fashion.