The governor and Republican legislative leaders shouldn't take for granted that Democrats will bail them out of the budget mess they find themselves in.

Tacitly conceding the recent special session to have been a failure, Gov. Jeb Bush and the Legislature's Republican leadership have agreed to a new one that would not only cut the budget even more deeply but also postpone a scheduled reduction in the intangibles tax, which will be a hard sell among their members in the House. That puts the governor in the unusual position of needing Democratic support and in the unwise posture of taking it for granted. A voice from the grave might help him now. It is that of Dempsey J. Barron, the legendarily powerful senator, whose watchword was "assume nothing."

Bush, President John McKay and House Speaker Tom Feeney appear to assume that the Democrats, having opposed the tax cut last spring and again last month, could not plausibly change their tune. As Feeney said -- with a straight face -- they would be seen as "playing politics." But there are variations on the tune that the Democrats can and should develop. One, that's already being looked at seriously, would be to let the tax cut stay in effect but repeal an exemption, for investments held by trusts, that is suspected of widespread and costly abuse.

Another would be for the Democrats to insist on sunsetting all sales tax exemptions as their price for coming to the budget cut table. That ought to appeal to McKay, who has pledged to accomplish tax reform at the regular session next year no matter how many others say it's impossible. Experience teaches that the sunset technique -- to revoke the exemptions effective upon adjournment of the subsequent session -- is the best way, if not the only way, to get the Legislature talking seriously about tax reform.

If the sales tax is riddled with exemptions, so is the intangibles tax, Florida's only statewide levy on wealth. In addition to exempting Florida and U.S. government bonds, bank accounts and retirement funds, which lets off most modest savers, the law also exempts securities held by irrevocable trusts. One law firm advertises these under the ironically appropriate acronym FLITE Trust -- for Florida Intangible Tax Exempt Trust -- as profitable for anyone with $2-million or more in assets to shelter. (The tax on that $2-million, it's worth noting, would be merely $2,000, which is less than many people of more modest means pay in real estate taxes on their homes.)

There is no reason why a trust should be exempt unless its revenue goes to charity. A trust that pays income to private individuals should be as liable to the tax as the persons themselves. If the trustee is a child or spouse, as the law permits, or if there is a side deal under which the trustee relinquishes the trust once the tax deadline has passed, the exemption becomes utterly indefensible.

Critics of the intangibles tax commonly cite the loopholes as the case for repealing the tax altogether. But the loopholes also make the case for reform, especially now that recent events have exposed the chronic anemia of Florida's revenue base. To hear Bush, the projected $1.3-billion budget deficit is entirely a consequence of Sept. 11. But state forecasters had anticipated a substantial fraction of it, on account of a slumping economy, before the terrorists struck. The budget cuts that must necessarily follow will be deep and hurtful. Contrary to such legislative denials as "This budget doesn't throw anyone under the bus," even the lesser cuts voted last month did precisely that. The Legislature voted to deny prenatal care to poor women, putting lives at risk. It voted to deny medicines and dental, vision and hearing care to older Medicaid clients, putting health at risk. It voted to decimate the crime prevention programs of juvenile and adult corrections, putting public safety at risk.

To do such things and not undertake tax reform would make of necessity not a virtue, but a great sin. And it shouldn't be only the Democrats who say so.

Back to Opinion

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

From the Times
Opinion page