Opinion: Less bad, but not good

With a nudge from Gov. Jeb Bush, the House and Senate have a fragile budget agreement within their grasp, but it is doubtful that it will survive the weekend. House Democrats don't like the Senate's bill -- though they dislike it less than the House's own bill -- and intend to vote against it Tuesday. To balance that bill will require delaying the previously approved cut in intangibles taxes. And though the Senate, the Democrats, the governor and even some House Republicans are willing to do that, at least 15 hard-core House Republicans including Speaker Tom Feeney are not. To make up the $128-million in question, they would dip dangerously deep into cash reserves. It is doubtful that the governor would accept that, and doubtful that he should. If the restive Republicans then vote against the budget bill, they and the Democrats might add up to enough votes to kill it. By some accounts, even the Senate Republicans are unhappy because they didn't like the bill they passed, were hoping the House would change it and resent the House plan to adopt it intact.

It was a typically confusing and treacherous day in Tallahassee, where the present economic crisis would be easier to manage if Bush and the Republicans hadn't insisted for the last three years on cutting taxes instead of reforming them. But to give the governor credit that is due, he offered some leadership Thursday when he issued a proclamation enabling the Legislature to make use of the intangibles tax money and to tap the previously unused Budget Stabilization Fund. On those points, he said what needed to be said. Though he'd prefer not to use that reserve, he agreed that "If there is ever a reason to have a Budget Stabilization Fund, it would be times like this." And while he would still rather carry out the intangibles tax cut, perhaps it is time for everyone "to set aside deeply held beliefs for the common good." The public, he noted, would "have a hard time understanding" in the event the Legislature fails to balance the budget and has to extend its session beyond Nov. 1.

However, failure would not be so terrible an option compared to the harsh realties of the Senate bill. Granted, it cuts some $400-million less than the House's package. But that still comes to more than $800-million in deep cuts that would probably never be restored in the absence of the political will to raise taxes. After only a few months, some 5,000 women with incomes just over the poverty level would lose prenatal care. That's the "negative birth outcomes" -- e.g., dead babies -- of which the Medicaid agency warned earlier. Similarly, adult Medicaid clients would have only a few more months before losing dental, vision and hearing care. As Lois Frankel, the House Democratic leader, told her members, "To say that the Senate bill is less bad does not make it good."

The governor also expanded the agenda to include security legislation -- but, pointedly, not the patriotism and prayer bills that have occupied the House. He also said he's a "little bit troubled" by some of the excessive secrecy bills pending in the Senate, saying that "We really need to be careful how we proceed." Those were welcome words. But the big issue is still the budget, and there is still little good news about that.

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