Spinnaker [Distributed: Wednesday, November 1, 2006]

As the gubernatorial and congressional elections approach, the races are getting tight.

Democrats and Republicans are pitted against one another to gain (or retain) control of the Houses of Congress. And here in Florida, the governor's seat is finally up for grabs again, the outcome of which has the potential to disrupt the balance of national politics.

The public is being inundated with political ads on TV and glossy flyers in their mailboxes.

But a large portion of the ballot isn't a choice between a name with "Dem." or "Rep." next to it. This is the part where Florida citizens get input into this state's constitution. There are six amendments on this election's ballot.

Unfortunately, they are written in legislative jargon, and it can be difficult to understand what they mean at a glance. It is, of course, unwise to "Christmas-tree" a ballot, especially when voting to change the law.

Below is a breakdown of the Spinnaker's interpretation of what six out of the eight amendments mean (Note the Ballot Summary in the box on page 3 and the official omission of Amendments 2 and 5).

AMENDMENT 1
Ballot Title:
State Planning and Budget Process

This is definitely the most complicated and convoluted of all the amendments, because it has to do with the budget. Six things will change if the amendment is passed.

1) Unless a 3/5 majority votes in favor, money distributed regularly from the state treasury using (nonrecurring general revenue) can't exceed 3 percent of the state's total income for a given financial (fiscal) year. In other words, if the state makes $3 million, the most the treasury can pay out to a recurring expense is $90,000.

2) A commission comprised of members of both the state House of Representatives and the state Senate will create a long-range financial plan to help the legislature make budget decisions. The commission must seek input from the public and the judicial and executive branches when making them.

3) Allowing small changes to the state budget recommended by the governor or the chief justice of the state supreme court without doing a formal voting process with the whole state legislature.

4) By law, state trust funds terminate four years after the date of they are voted into existence. This part of the amendment would allow a number of exceptions to this rule, namely proceeds from the Florida Education Lotteries.

5) The amendment would require the state agencies and departments to prepare a long-term financial plan, which must be revised every two years. The planning document would project future goals and needs and must by approved by the state legislature.

6) Every four years, starting in Jan. 2007, the governor, the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate will choose a committee made up of members of the legislature and the public. The task force has a year to study the state government and come up with recommendations to improve government operations and reduce costs.

Definitions to know:
- Trust fund: a government fund administered separately from other funds and used for a specified purpose, i.e. a highway trust fund.
- Appropriate: an act of a legislature authorizing money to be paid from the treasury for a specified use.

AMENDMENT 3
Ballot Title:
Requiring Broader Public Support for Constitutional Amendments or Revisions

Right now the law requires that for an amendment to be passed, more voters in the state have to vote in favor of it, no matter the size of the majority. This amendment proposes that in order for any new amendments to be passed after this election, at least 60 percent of voters must approve it.

AMENDMENT 4
Ballot Title:
Protect People, Especially Youth, from Addiction, Disease and Other Health Hazards of Using Tobacco

A portion of the money the state receives from the late-1990s Tobacco Settlement would go to an extensive anti-tobacco campaign targeted to children and teenagers.

The campaign would include advertising, school curriculum, community programs that discourage tobacco use and more enforcement of laws to prohibit minors from smoking. Money would begin to be appropriated for the campaign as soon as voters approve it.

AMENDMENT 6
Ballot Title:
Increased Homestead Exemption

People over the age of 65 with an income of less than $20,000 a year would now be exempt from having their homes seized to pay their debts if it was worth $50,000 or less.

Definitions to know:
- Homestead Exemption: an exemption from liability that prevents creditors from obtaining satisfaction from a debtor's homestead.
NOTE: The laws governing the homestead exemption vary greatly from state to state. Most states have limits on the amount for which a debtor is exempted, but a few have no limits at all. Others have limits that are dependent on the size of the property, the type of property, or the age of the property owner.
- Homestead: a dwelling with its land and buildings, occupied by the owner as a home and exempted by a homestead law from seizure or sale for debt.

AMENDMENT 7
Ballot Title:
Permanently Disabled Veterans' Discount on Homestead Ad Valorem Tax

Disabled veterans, over the age of 65, who were Florida residents when entering the military, would have the possibility of a discount on their property taxes.

Definitions to know:
- Ad Valorem Tax: a tax levied according to the value of the property, merchandise, etc., being taxed.

AMENDMENT 8
Ballot Title:
Eminent Domain

The amendment would prohibit private property taken by the state for public use to be given to a single person or a private business, except if a 3/5 majority of the state House and Senate approves of the exchange.

All property taken in eminent domain before Jan. 2, 2007 would be exempt from this amendment.

Definitions to know:
- Eminent Domain: the power of the state to take private property for public use with payment of compensation to the owner.

Proposed amendments on the Nov. 7, 2006 ballot

AMENDMENT 1
Ballot Summary: Proposing amendments to the State Constitution to limit the amount of nonrecurring general revenue which may be appropriated for recurring purposes in any fiscal year to 3 percent of the total general revenue funds estimated to be available, unless otherwise approved by a three fifths vote of the Legislature; to establish a Joint Legislative Budget Commission, which shall issue long-range financial outlooks; to provide for limited adjustments in the state budget without the concurrence of the full Legislature, as provided by general law; to reduce the number of times trust funds are automatically terminated; to require the preparation and biennial revision of a long-range state planning document; and to establish a Government Efficiency Task Force and specify its duties.

AMENDMENT 2
Ballot Title: Term Limits Removed from the ballot by the Florida Legislature.

AMENDMENT 3
Ballot Summary: Proposes an amendment to Section 5 of Article XI of the State Constitution to require that any proposed amendment to or revision of the State Constitution, whether proposed by the Legislature, by initiative, or by any other method, must be approved by at least 60 percent of the voters of the state voting on the measure, rather than by a simple majority. This proposed amendment would not change the current requirement that a proposed constitutional amendment imposing a new state tax or fee be approved by at least 2/3 of the voters of the state voting in the election in which such an amendment is considered.

AMENDMENT 4
Ballot Summary: To protect people, especially youth, from addiction, disease, and other health hazards of using tobacco, the Legislature shall use some Tobacco Settlement money annually for a comprehensive statewide tobacco education and prevention program using Centers for Disease Control best practices. Specifies some program components, emphasizing youth, requiring one-third of total annual funding for advertising. Annual funding is 15 percent of 2005 Tobacco Settlement payments to Florida, adjusted annually for inflation. Provides definitions. Effective immediately.

AMENDMENT 5
Ballot Title: Independent Nonpartisan Commission to Apportion Legislative and Congressional Districts Which Replaces Apportionment by Legislature Removed from the ballot by the Florida Supreme Court

AMENDMENT 6
Ballot Summary: Proposing amendment of the State Constitution to increase the maximum additional homestead exemption for low-income seniors from $25,000 to $50,000 and to schedule the amendment to take effect January 1, 2007, if adopted.

AMENDMENT 7
Ballot Summary: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to provide a discount from the amount of ad valorem tax on the homestead of a partially or totally permanently disabled veteran who is age 65 or older who was a Florida resident at the time of entering military service, whose disability was combat-related, and who was honorably discharged; to specify the percentage of the discount as equal to the percentage of the veteran's permanent service-connected disability; to specify qualification requirements for the discount; to authorize the Legislature to waive the annual application requirement in subsequent years by general law; and to specify that the provision takes effect Dec. 7, 2006, is self-executing, and does not require implementing legislation.

AMENDMENT 8
Ballot Summary: Proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit the transfer of private property taken by eminent domain to a natural person or private entity; providing that the Legislature may by general law passed by a three-fifths vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature permit exceptions allowing the transfer of such private property; and providing that this prohibition on the transfer of private property taken by eminent domain is applicable if the petition of taking that initiated the condemnation proceeding was filed on or after Jan. 2, 2007.

Source: www.duvalelections.com

Two political parties' agendas have hidden similarities

Student Opinion

Mid-term elections are fast approaching and I'm frustrated, not because I've seen more than enough campaign advertisements and debates, but because I see no true differences between the Republican and Democratic agendas.

But, you object, the parties are near polar opposites. On the contrary; they are much alike. Let me explain.

Democrats typically advocate social welfare programs such as increased Social Security funding and universal healthcare coverage.

These policies are to be funded publicly, that is, the government pays the bills. What many overlook is that government doesn't make money - it takes money from producers, under threat of force, and spends it irrespective of their wishes.

Programs like these are established by politicos who pay for them with others' money and administered largely by unelected, unaccountable bureaucracies mired in red tape and insulated from market mechanisms which promote effectiveness and efficiency.

On the other side of the aisle, Republicans, once known for their fiscal conservatism, have become the party of Big Government and bigger spending.

Indeed, George W. Bush has already borrowed more money than all previous American Presidents combined. And while many Republicans oppose social welfare, they champion corporate welfare measures such as doling out subsidies to politically connected businesses rather than leaving them to compete in the open market. The consequent financial burdens of these policies are borne by you and I, the taxpayers.

The left supports minimum-wage legislation. Although this may seem to help the least-privileged, the opposite is true. Elderly and low-skilled workers won't find employment because employers will either lack the funds to hire the workforce they need at the government-mandated wage rate, or they will be unwilling to pay workers more than they are worth (reflected by their productivity).

Besides, if someone wants to work for less than the minimum wage (and many do), they should be allowed. In short, this policy will restrict liberty and exacerbate the problems it is intended to solve: unemployment will increase and incomes will decrease.

Republicans oppose same-sex marriage and the burning of the American flag. In other words, they feel entitled to suppress and punish behavior that, while it certainly offends some, harms no one.

If you think I have just described two divergent agendas, you are mistaken. The common thread is that both parties purport to know better than us how we should spend our income and live our lives.

Now, we certainly do need government - in the forms of law-enforcement, national defense and courts - but I would prefer that it stay out of my bank account and personal affairs.

So is there any hope? I think so. In case you are wondering, I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I am a Liberal. Confused? Well, I am not liberal in the modern American Democratic Party sense of the term. I am a classical, or market, Liberal. Many today use the term "Libertarian" instead. True Liberalism advocates political and economic freedom, that is, individual liberty. Liberalism holds that people can engage in whatever behavior they choose, even self-destructive behavior, unless they harm others.

If you too are tired of living under the Republican-Democrat duopoly, maybe Liberalism is right for you. After all, life can be frustrating enough as is.

Letters to the Editor

Can't separate church from person, even if politician

Dear Editor,

I was a bit troubled by Ivan Solarte's opinion on the matters of separation of church and state in last week's paper.

As a follower of the teachings of Jesus Christ you can't have faith that doesn't affect your actions, for faith without works is dead (James 2:20, see also Luke 6:46).

If a representative elected into office claims to have faith, it SHOULD be influencing the way they govern. Now, not all claims to faith are genuine and I am not the Righteous Judge. But can the two really ever be separated in an individual? Your spiritual beliefs define who you are, so how can you shut them off in one arena and turn them on in another?

Now just because government officials take a different stance on an issue like abortion or the Iraq war doesn't mean that they are imposing their religion on you.

Our national religion is not decided for us and there are no forced conversions. The most persecution we are likely to receive is a dirty look or called a harsh word. In countries such as China, Indonesia and Iran Christian churches are burned and many followers are attacked during services. Their possessions are destroyed and their lives are threatened.

We all should be thankful for the religious freedom we have in this country.

Journalists' 9/11 coverage not the problem with tragedy's aftermath

Dear Editor,

After reading the editorial "Media should cover 9/11 as more than unfortunate," I agree with the call for compassion, but I don't find it necessary for journalists to be scrutinized over their use of adjectives. In terms of respect, I see more reason to shun the capitalists in Hollywood that are exploiting the event at the box office.

Politicians don't assume that people will accept their rhetoric, but rather bank on the fact they do, by perpetuating the tendencies toward suggestibility, group think and apathy. Perhaps the media is serving their function, to report objectively, not convey heavy emotion. Maybe they feel great sorrow, but also severe speculation about this war, and mistrust for our government.

Bush continues to expand federal power, the latest manifestation being the Military Commissions Act, which eliminates habeas corpus rights, allows detainment of anyone as "unlawful enemy combatants" and allows continued torture in the name of intelligence. Officials have admitted to tapping the phones of millions under the Patriot Act.

Our founding fathers would be appalled at the unconstitutional, rogue, misrepresentative state of our nation. We are explicitly guaranteed inalienable rights through the Constitution, but Washington is full of self-serving business tycoons who legislate around it.

Since you proclaimed to be uneducated, google "Loose Change," a 9/11 film. Watch it with an open mind and see if your perception changes. I am not claiming to believe it all ... critical thinking, right? The University of North Florida lacks social awareness, and those who do speak up tend to lean right. Where are the liberal, hip people?

KDistributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services -- PERMALINK -- TOP OF PAGE

Print Edition

DISCOURSE

Ballot amendments decoded

Editorial

Proposed amendments on the Nov. 7, 2006 ballot

Two political parties' agendas have hidden similarities

Student Opinion

Letters to the Editor

Can't separate church from person, even if politician

Journalists' 9/11 coverage not the problem with tragedy's aftermath

This Week

News

Expressions

Sports

Print Edition