State amendments: from health reform to tax relief

A synopsis of the proposed constitutional amendments on the Nov. 6 ballot. The amendments must receive at least 60 percent of the vote to pass.

There is no Amendment 7

AMENDMENT 1, HEALTHCARE SERVICES

THE AMENDMENT: This amendment is aimed at prohibiting the government from directly or indirectly compelling employers to buy or provide healthcare coverage for their employees. It also makes clear in the constitution that people may pay healthcare providers directly for care — and don’t have to have insurance, and can’t be forced to pay a penalty or tax for paying out of pocket for healthcare.

CONTEXT: Opponents say the proposal would have no effect at nullifying its intended target, the federal healthcare individual mandate, because of the supremacy of federal law over state law. Backers say it would prevent future attempts to put similar healthcare requirements on residents.

AMENDMENT 2: HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FOR VETERANS

THE AMENDMENT: The proposal would provide an additional homestead exemption to wounded veterans who were not residents of the state when they entered military service. The proposal would exempt from taxation a property’s value between $50,000 and $75,000.

CONTEXT: Florida law already provides an additional homestead exemption to military personnel disabled while in combat. The amendment simply expands the exemption to disabled veterans who may have been residents of other states when the disability occurred but who now reside in Florida.

AMENDMENT 3: REVENUE LIMITATION

THE AMENDMENT: Proposed Amendment 3 would replace the existing state revenue cap, which is based on personal income growth in Florida, with a new one based on inflation and population changes. If the state were to collect more in taxes than the formula allows, it would have to be put into a reserve fund, and not spent, and at some point would have to be used for reducing local property taxes for schools or returned to taxpayers. The cap could be raised only with a super majority vote in the Legislature.

CONTEXT: The state has never actually hit the current cap.

AMENDMENT 4: PROPERTY TAX RESTRICTIONS

THE AMENDMENT: The proposal would reduce the cap on tax assessment increases from 10 percent to 5 percent a year on commercial property. The plan also would provide an additional, temporary property tax break for first-time homebuyers and prevents tax assessments from going up when the market value of the property goes down.

CONTEXT: Backers say the amendment will continue efforts to rein in the increase in property taxes by expanding protections now afforded to homeowners. Opponents, including the Florida Association of Counties, say the measure will further hamstring cash-strapped local governments, which rely on property tax revenue for the bulk of their funding.

AMENDMENT 5: RULES FOR STATE COURTS

THE AMENDMENT: Proposed Amendment 5 would require Senate confirmation for state Supreme Court justices appointed by the governor and make it easier for lawmakers to influence court procedural rules, allowing them to change them with a simple majority vote, rather than a super majority. The proposal also would give lawmakers more access to confidential files involving judges accused of misconduct.

CONTEXT: Many lawyers and judges who oppose the amendment say lawmakers are trying to assert more control over a judiciary that many Republican legislators think has surpassed its own authority too often.

It is very unlikely that the peace talks between the Colombian government and FARC narcoguerrillas will come to a good end. It is even possible that they’re not a good idea.

For 53 years, the Cuban exile community in South Florida and other parts of the world has been combating the Castro brothers and their totalitarian system of government. We have been fighting what seems to be, at times, an endless battle. A struggle we live each day over a café Cubano or by reminiscing with our grandparents about the Cuba of the past.

State and local governments, struggling to emerge from the aftermath of the financial crisis, face another looming funding gap: in their public pensions. These plans hold almost $3 trillion in assets and cover more than 10 percent of U.S. workers, so they’re an important force in the economy.

View the original article here