Cover Story
by jacquelyn horkan, editor
The Image Of Us
Rarely has fate smiled so kindly on mankind at it did in the City of Brotherly Love in
1787, leaving us with one of the happy mysteries of history: How did one tiny nation
muster such a collection of brilliant, clear-eyed thinkers and get them in one place at
one time?
Out of their wisdom, our Founding Fathers crafted the U.S. Constitution, a document
that both reflected and helped create the attributes necessary for a nation of free,
self-governing citizens. The idea of how to become the people we should be continues to
inform public policy to this day.
Perhaps the genius of those men who met in Philadelphia for the Constitutional
Convention spoiled us. Never have we Americans managed to match that gathering of
intellect. Fortunately, their enduring gift -- the U.S. Constitution -- has given us a
great measure of protection against every misstep we've taken since then.
It is fashionable today to bemoan the mediocrity of our current crop of politicians.
But to paraphrase one 20th century politician, we have met them and they are us. For
better or worse, we get the government we deserve. As the 1998 Legislative Session begins,
now seems as good a time as any to look at the government we have chosen.
HOW
THINGS CHANGE
Cast your memory back 10 years and ask yourself the question: How would the Legislature
respond to a crisis in state schools? By raising taxes of course.
Last November's special session on school overcrowding gives us a dramatic illustration
of the self-correcting mechanism of self-government in America. In the months leading up
to the special session, Gov. Lawton Chiles embarked on a blitz of soapbox oration and
photo ops in order to build support for increased spending on public school construction.
Proposals developed in response to the crisis included a provision to give school
districts the power to increase taxes without voter approval. The Legislature would have
none of it, choosing instead to leverage lottery money through bond issues.
Whether you agree that a crisis even existed, much less whether borrowing money was the
best answer, you can't help but marvel at this demonstration of the changes wrought in
governing philosophy over the last five years.
Furious at ballooning state expenditures during the 1980s, voters forced lawmakers to
place a revenue-limiting amendment on the 1994 ballot, even as they were electing people
who promised to stop taking the easy way out of policy decisions by imposing new taxes.
Rep. Rob Wallace (R-Tampa) has analyzed the revenue limit measure and found it
insufficient (Revenue Limits: A Modern Fairy Tale, Jan.-Feb. 1998 Florida
Business Insight). In fact, the limit mechanism has allowed the growth in the cap to
outstrip the growth in revenues. Lawmakers could raise taxes without exceeding the limit,
but they probably won't.
As it turns, the constitutional amendment was the least effective method for voters to
express their frustration with high taxes. Selecting anti-tax representatives has offered
the greater protection.
The ease with which the constitution can be changed wrests from legislators their
obligation to make difficult policy decisions. It also removes from citizens their duty to
maintain vigilant watch over those decisions.
Amendments placed on the ballot usually couch complex issues in sound-bite terms. These
amendments are justified – often incorrectly -- as methods to circumvent political
cowardice on important issues. They also reflect a general impatience with the slow-moving
ship of state. But we shouldn't forget that slow pace protects us from the folly of the
moment.
Of all the citizen initiatives placed before voters in the last two decades, only a few
have been appropriate constitutional material, meaning that their purpose was to effect a
change in the relationship between the government and the governed.
One of those is about to bring a revolution in Florida government.
YOU'RE
OUT
In 1992, Florida voters inserted into the Constitution a provision that would limit
legislators and Cabinet officials to eight years in office. As we draw closer to the 2000
elections, ground zero for term limits, a new strategic element will enter the mechanics
of Florida politics.
Under term limits, a politician may only serve eight consecutive years in one office;
after that time, he either leaves politics or runs for another office. Thus, over every
eight-year span, Florida's governing class will be filled with newcomers. We could
conceivably see some politicians cycling from House to Senate, perhaps to the Cabinet, and
back again every eight years.
Under the old regime of unlimited terms, lawmakers steadily worked their way up to the
ranks until they grasped the brass ring of the offices of House Speaker or Senate
President. Now, the progression will move much more quickly and competition for leadership
roles will become more fierce. This is not necessarily a good nor a bad development, just
a feature of the new system.
Based on its gross domestic product, Florida ranks as the world's 16th largest market
economy, and the fifth largest in the Americas. Protecting and promoting that prosperity
may be complicated somewhat by term limits.
What will be interesting is whether the real power in the Legislature will shift from
the politicians to the full-time staff, as opponents of term limits allege. This could
threaten the business community's advocacy of good economic policies since legislative
staffers are not known for their grasp of business practices or challenges.
Today, business associations such as Associated Industries of Florida (AIF), must
monitor the activities of the staffers as well as of the lawmakers. This role will become
more vital to the job of protecting the business community against unwise incursions into
the principles of economic freedom.
Term limits also mean the market for candidates is about to blow wide open, as it were.
Every eight years, we'll have to replace 168 politicians (120 in the House, 40 in the
Senate, eight in the Cabinet, and the governor and lieutenant governor who already are
under term limits). You can subtract from that number those politicians simply moving on
to the next office on their list of political ascendancy, and add a few for turnover in
congressional offices, which are not subject to term limits. But any way you look at it,
Florida will need to find a lot more politicians to take office.
AIF is preparing for that by expanding its candidate recruiting activities (see
Political Platform column). We want to make sure that demand for candidates is met by a
supply of people who understand what kind of public policies are necessary to create jobs
and prosperity.
While the first repercussions of term limits are still two years away, the preparations
must begin now. And of course, there is also the more immediate business of the 1998
Session requiring attention. In the following pages, you'll find the areas of law
identified by AIF as requiring attention.
As the Founding Fathers demanded of us, AIF's proposals have been developed through
consideration of the kind of people we want to be in Florida. Our answer is to seek
rewards for those who are industrious and innovative -- the job creators, the wage payers,
the producers of the goods and services we all need.
March/April 1998 -- Florida Business Insight, PO Box 784 , Tallahassee, Fla.
32302
(850)224-7173, insight@aif.com
