The end of the legislative session is approaching and the House and Senate have yet to agree on a budget, thanks mostly to House Speaker Johnnie Byrd's refusal to raise taxes.

If reason still ruled in Tallahassee, the Legislature would by now have in hand, befitting the lateness of the hour, at least the general outline of a budget compromise if not the specific provisions. But with adjournment only eight days off, the devil is not yet even in the details; it is in the fanatic insistence of House Speaker Johnnie B. Byrd Jr., that taxes will not be raised, no matter what.

Reason does not rule the House; Byrd does. For all that the 119 other members seem to matter, they might as well hand him their proxies and go home. Their presence in Tallahassee is an ornamental extravagance. The Democrats have at least used their voices to protest, but the majority Republicans, who entrusted Byrd with the power he abuses, will have much to explain to their constituents in the event of any of the several embarrassing contingencies that loom larger by the day. So will Gov. Jeb Bush, who is Byrd's so-far silent partner in the attempted deconstruction of the nation's fourth largest state.

The worst of the possible outcomes would be for the the Senate to capitulate entirely to the Byrd Wrecking Co. Senate President Jim King made a final offer Wednesday to settle for only half the $950-million the Senate had sought for additions to its bare-base budget. To give up any more would be unpardonably hurtful to the schools, doom the colleges and universities to a deepening spiral of mediocrity, and further degrade health services and social services on which the lives and safety of Floridians depend.

A lesser evil would be to extend the session in hope of a decent deal. The least offensive option would be to acknowledge a stalemate on the budget, enact as much other responsible legislation as possible, and leave appropriations to an ensuing special session.

King, the only pragmatist among the three top Tallahassee leaders, went further than many of his own senators thought he should in offering Tuesday night to settle for $500-million in additional spending, half of which would come from new taxes and half from "non-recurring revenue from mutually agreeable sources" (translation: trust funds). King's reward for this concession was a reply from Byrd proposing barely $345-million without any new taxes -- other than, perhaps, a nuisance array of higher fees and fines. Byrd's counteroffer would require looting even more trust funds and, as Byrd himself specified, entail a permanent diversion into general revenue of documentary stamp taxes that were levied nine years ago on the express promise to spend them on affordable housing. Some people might call that simple larceny.

King's final counteroffer was to settle for $475-million, without predetermining the documentary stamp tax issue. Only $250-million of that would be in genuine new revenue -- whether the tax reforms that, however modest, horrify Byrd, or some combination of higher fines and fees (taxes by another name) that appear to be more acceptable. The other $225-million would have to come from various "nonrecurring" accounts that would be depleted without any assurance of revenue to replace them in the following year.

In so saying, King also promised the Senate that "we have gone virtually as far as we can go, and I hope the House recognizes that." In fact, he went further than he should have gone. Byrd's answer: He'd think about it if King would show him where the money could be found without calling it taxes.

Of various deadlines, including one set by the Constitution, noon today is the moment of no return. Either Byrd comes to terms, allowing negotiations to begin as to how precisely to spend the state's money, or a meltdown is inevitable. So far, the House and Senate have not held even one conference on the many significant differences between their spending bills. The House, for example, set aside $400-million, indefensibly, for "member projects." In other words, for pork. The Senate would spend it to statewide advantage.

As overtures were exchanged backstage, a debate on the House floor Wednesday underscored the fundamental issue. There, Republicans were proposing to "comply" with the class size amendment in part by reducing high school graduation requirements. Democrats objected -- in vain. How cheap does the Republican Party intend Florida to be? With every passing day that the Senate and House have remained so far apart, the governor's lack of personal leadership has been looking more deliberate and less coincidental. In Tallahassee as well as Washington, is it the purpose of the Bush dynasty to leave the government meaner and poorer, for the conceivable benefit only of those who are too poor in spirit to pay their fair share of taxes?

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page