The Florida Senate has performed admirably but isbeing pressured to accept unwise last-minute dealson the budget and workers' compensation.
Published May 21, 2003
The one bright light in Tallahassee these past few dismal months has been that of the Florida Senate. In contrast to the House, which is now little more than a garish stage setting for Speaker Johnnie Byrd's extremist whims and decrees, senators have collectively applied a wealth of individual judgments to the Senate's consensus on the budget and most other issues. Now, however, the special session is entering its most dangerous hours, when even senators are prey to the delusive argument that any deal, even a bad one, is better than no deal.
A Senate that cherishes the respect it has earned would refuse to swallow whole the workers' compensation bill (SB 50A) that is scheduled to come to the floor today. On the merits, the bill is scandalously unbalanced, eking out anticipated savings almost entirely at the expense of injured workers. Beyond the content, however, the terms under which it is being railroaded through the Senate are deeply offensive to the principles under which a democratic legislature is supposed to operate.
The deal requires Gov. Jeb Bush, Speaker Byrd and Senate President Jim King to agree on the terms of the legislation. This effectively gives each of the triumvirate a veto on any amendment. Because King is too eager to pass a bill - any bill - Byrd now has control of the contents. Byrd is taking his script, of course, from the insurance lobby, which treats the House in the manner of a wholly owned subsidiary. The white flag became painfully clear Tuesday as the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee voted generally along party lines (and over the objections of its chairman) against fairness for injured workers.
One example: Less than three weeks ago, the Senate voted unanimously to reject the House's attempt to limit mental health benefits to three months, which the new bill does. Opponents had to settle Tuesday for a promise that the bill's managers would try to work out something with the House. But what if Byrd refuses?
It should be for doctors, not insurance lobbyists or politicians, to say how long is necessary to heal the trauma of a salesclerk who is raped at work, a firefighter who has had to retrieve the mangled bodies of comrades, or a teacher who has seen a colleague shot dead by a student. Several Republican senators were visibly embarrassed by the harsh provisions they were endorsing. Rules Chairman Tom Lee, for one, said later he doubted he could support the bill on the floor with its present provision barring lawsuits for gross negligence unless an employer intended to hurt or kill a worker. Again, senators said they would try to work something out with the House but hesitated to support amendments that Byrd might not accept.
If Byrd does not accommodate reasonable concerns, the Senate should not enact the bill.
That King was too eager for any compromise on workers' compensation gives rise to concern for how the Senate will defend its principles in the showdown over the budget. Two particular issues stand out. One is Byrd's demand for $25-million to fund the Alzheimer's Center at the University of South Florida, run by a board he chairs that would perpetuate itself and (if separate legislation is unwisely enacted) operate with an enormous latitude for secrecy. The other is an assortment of more than $300-million in such House "member projects" as a $100,000 softball field in one member's district and a $700,000 golf course building in another.
In a flush budget, there might be room for such pork. But there isn't a penny to spare for any of it in a situation so tight that university and community college budgets are being cut and students are being made to pay more for less. To its credit, the Senate passed a pork-free budget, and it should stand its ground.
