Category: Florida

There’s a lot, obviously, to take issue with when it comes to the Florida Legislature and education. The rationale and refrain is a familiar one: as long as what’s being done is in the good name of “accountability,” it can’t be bad. From teacher evaluations to budget cuts to expanded voucher programs.

But in the good name of media scrutiny, let’s not overlook that which has merit. To wit: legislators want to loosen limits on class sizes, and they want to rewrite some rules that could require middle school students to pass civics.

On the smaller class-size issue, this was a well-intentioned, bad move back in 2002, when it passed as a constitutional amendment. Now the Legislature wants to alter the definition of the educational core curriculum, a move that would reduce the number of courses affected by class-size restrictions. It’s an eminently sane approach for a cash-strapped system.

All things being equal, it’s always best to have fewer students per teacher. Of course it is. But all things are never equal. Of course they’re not. Every district, every school, every class has its own dynamics. The key variables are parents and teachers and money.

There’s never enough quality parental involvement; never enough dedicated, motivating teachers; and never enough funds. Imposing arbitrary class-size limits creates onerous budgetary ripples. As in building more facilities, hiring more teachers (or use some to teach out of their certification fields) and employing more team-teaching gimmicks. As a result, more than half of the state’s 67 counties didn’t meet the class-size requirements last fall and now face millions in fines. As if that will help.

But in schools that are already well-funded and well-staffed, smaller class sizes are welcome. Would that that were a familiar scenario in recession-weary Florida.

As to the mandatory civics requirement, recent elections have underscored an alarming pattern and a sobering reality. There can be no such thing, ultimately, as a lazy, under-informed electorate in a viable representative democracy. Government by extremes and lobbyists results.

We give lip or no service to the teaching of civics at our own peril. This isn’t quantum physics. This is knowing what we say we stand for. What we say we fight for. Knowing what a federal republic is.  Why America matters. The branches of government. The value of a fundamental understanding of the First and Second Amendments. The role, rights and responsibilities of individual voters. The role, rights and responsibilities of those who disagree with us.

Ironically, if we would do a better job of preparing our students for the democratic process and the governmental system they will inherit, it would be less likely they would saddle themselves with the sort of Legislature and governor now ensconced in Tallahassee.

According to a recent poll by the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, Gov. Rick Scott’s disapproval rating has now increased to 48 per cent.

One question. Given that 51.1 per cent didn’t vote for him to begin with and given his three-month alienation campaign, how is it only 48 per cent? Are there that many tea partiers among us?

We’re all too familiar with the things you can’t do in this state. It’s a lot more than buying reasonably-priced home-owners insurance; convincing our best and brightest to go into teaching; insulating ourselves from those reminding us how they did things “up North”; or wading into the Gulf of Mexico in June without shuffling.

You can’t, for instance, raise revenue by taxing a key part of the revenue base: services. Just ask former Gov. Bob Martinez about that. It cost him a re-election.

Or how about a sensible, non Cold War-era policy towards Cuba? Ask the South Florida vendetta crowd, who have been holding a foreign-policy veto for half a century, about that. If you dare.

Or settle into a truly secure feeling when it comes to protecting Florida’s Gulf coast beaches from worst-case, off-shore oil-drilling scenarios. Just ask BP or Gov. Rick Scott or Sen. Marco Rubio about that.

Then there’s high speed rail. It’s so 21st century. Forget short- and long-term jobs, I-4 redevelopment and Orlando-Tampa synergy. Tea party ideology and selected libertarian think tanks will carry the day. Just ask — oh, never mind.

Now add another. There’s no provision in this state to recall a governor. No matter the circumstances. No matter how outrageously counterproductive such an official may be to the best interest of Florida. No matter how perniciously polarizing a presence.

You can recall a county commissioner. Or a mayor. Recall that the mayor of Miami-Dade was recalled just last month. But not statewide officials.

Actually, we’re like 31 other states sans recall options. Only they’re not Rick Scott’s ideological lockbox, Floriduh, a state still reeling from the impact of the Great Recession and Ponzi-scheme growth scenarios.

But there is an impeachment provision. And there’s even an online petition circulating around. But, alas, you realistically can’t do that either. 

That’s because it’s takes a two-thirds vote of the House to impeach. And this is no House divided; more than two thirds are GOPsters. Chances are better that Gov. Scott will dump his Solantic interest.

The grim reality is this: turning down billions in federal rail money; pushing for mandatory drug tests for state employees; minimizing transparency via the media; greasing the skids for a potential conflict-of-interest scenario; trying to cut our way to prosperity; and foot-dragging on voter-approved, fair-districting measures are likely not “impeachable” offenses.

Alas, merely offensive.

First it was the ideology from hell. Courtesy of a mandate-free, minority governor with more allegiance to cherry-picked libertarian think tanks and tea party partisans than to Florida’s best interest.

Exhibit A, of course, was the derailing of jobs, redevelopment and megalopolis synergy between Orlando and Tampa. It’s still a bitter, infuriating debacle. Exhibit B could be Scott’s continued infatuation with Florida off-shore drilling.

But such positions were in keeping with a consistent, if disingenuous, definition of “accountability to taxpayers.” As if the only other option were no accountability to taxpayers. But false-choice, zero-sum scenarios are an ideologue’s best rhetorical weapon.  

There then followed, among others, attacks on teacher pensions, prison personnel, a prescription drug data base (PDDB) and growth-management oversight. Among the dichotomies: ostensible jobs associated with reinvigorated Florida sprawl makes sense; guaranteed ones associated with high-speed rail don’t. No less incongruous: Scott has backed off any confrontation with BP over money that Florida can recover–and can obviously use–from the Deepwater Horizon oil spill last summer.

Now, it’s beyond idiotology with Scott’s Big Brother executive order to drug-test government employees. While making the case that he had (patient) privacy issues with PDDB, he has no such qualms about state workers’ (excluding those in public safety-risk positions or those who have aroused “reasonable suspicion”) rights to privacy.

And it’s much more than just the ACLU who foresee a courtroom showdown. Legal consensus doesn’t favor Scott’s preference for what amounts to a guilty-until-proven-innocent, Napoleonic Code approach to state employees. Federal court precedent–in the context of the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches–generally doesn’t support Scott’s take. And how hypocritically ironic is it for drug-testing overkill in a state with a notorious “pill-mill” reputation.

Moreover, the costs will hardly be nominal. As many as 100,000 workers could come under the drug-test and random drug-screen mandate.

What deficit? What priorities?  What mixed-message principles! What a disaster.

It goes with the rhetorical territory of skilled debaters, generic politicians and anyone with an agenda. Find a word or concept that everyone can agree is admirable and then expand, sometimes exponentially, the concept for your own partisan purposes. A clever rhetorician’s big tent.

It can be a commercial euphemism that subliminally upgrades a “used car” into a “pre-owned” one. Or it can be a social-issue lightning rod framed in the positive, such as “pro life.” Let’s be honest, “anti-choice” is nothing to rally around.  “Pro-choice,” however, can resonate, but not “anti-life.”

NRA lobbyists prefer a “pro-2nd Amendment rights” label to a “pro-assault weapon” moniker. Of course they do. Strip club owners like “freedom of expression” a lot more than “legal lap dances.” “Liberals”–more than ever–prefer being labeled “progressives.”   

We won’t even get into the co-option of “martyr” and “freedom fighter.”  And wouldn’t it be easier to court normal relations with Cuba if it were the failed-revolution “Pearl of the Antilles” and not a politically-charged “state sponsor of terrorism?”

Probably no agenda-advancing word is more frequently invoked in this state than “accountability.” Remember it was in the good name of “accountability” that Gov. Jeb Bush sold the FCAT bill of goods. Nobody, of course, was against “accountability.” No more than they were against “education.” But “teach-to-the-test” scenarios? Unaccounted-for variables? Too much nuance for a sound-bite “accountability” mantra.

Which brings us–again–(it’s been less than three months?) to Gov. Rick Scott. He is, he keeps reminding us, “accountable” to taxpayers. That’s a high-impact, rhetorical parlay. So, ipso facto, whatever he does in the good name of “accountability” to taxpayers–that’s all of us, including those who don’t cherry pick libertarian think tanks–must be worth doing. It’s righteously right there with never permitting taxpayers to be left “on the hook.” Everyone, as we well know, favors hookless taxpayers.

And that’s how you rationalize refusing high-speed rail money despite overwhelming assurances on cost overruns and favorable ridership-projection scenarios. It’s how you explain scapegoating teacher pensions or dismissing a prescription drug monitoring program or demonizing growth-management oversight.

It’s the rhetorical extension of the ideology that got Scott elected. If he doesn’t get re-elected, it will be because a majority of voters held themselves, ironically, “accountable.”

This just in: Add another $135 million to next year’s projected state deficit. That brings it to $3.75 billion–with a “B”–give or take a few mil.

And this not just in–because it’s an ongoing reality: Still no serious plan to update Florida’s revenue-raising capacity. The sales-tax skewed formula still harkens back to the days when the Sunshine State was routinely adding those 1,000 new residents per day–and go-go growth and sprawling suburbia was Florida’s manifest destiny.  

But there’s this constitutional mandate to balance a budget, so the next one will, indeed–however skewed–be balanced. At the apparent expense of the usual bureaucratic robber barons: those living large off the golden goose of education, prisons and growth-management oversight. Then there’s the fat waiting to be carved from the gluttonous likes of those needing unemployment-benefits and help from the Medically Needy program. Beach re-nourishment? A prescription drug monitoring program? When in doubt, trim some taxes, increase some public-sector unemployment and talk some think-tank smack.

But nowhere is there so much as a hint of responsible revenue raising as a legitimate tool in addressing a 10-figure budget deficit. Expanding casino gambling is on the table but the taxing of services is not even up for discussion. The latter now seems ingrained as a political, third-rail issue the way Cuban policy has been. Since when is no guts an ideology?

And why no mention about joining a compact of pro-active (challenging the “physical presence” rationale) states to tax internet retailers? Doesn’t taxing the key burgeoning sector of the tax base, while strategically giving tax-break incentives to targeted corporate relocatees, make equitable, bottom line sense in a state enraptured with business models? To date, Florida has seemed indifferent to a possible piece of e-commerce sales, which have been estimated at nearly $3.5 trillion nationally.

And worse yet, there may even be a “Smart Cap” amendment next year that would put a governor, as it were, on the amount of revenue available to future lawmakers.

Of course, Gov. Rick Scott is the worst thing to hit this state since the last yellow fever outbreak. But credit can still be given for the governor’s recent focus on ports and his trade trip to Panama, where he met with Panamanian President Ricardo Martinelli. Potential free-trade agreement scenarios, Panama Canal expansion and Florida’s wherewithal to handle expanded commerce through the canal topped Scott’s agenda. Better to be the “Gateway to Latin America” than “Floriduh.”

The trip to Panama makes more economic sense, frankly, then his predecessor’s first trade-mission sortie–to Israel.

Gov. Rick Scott has made it clear that he’s all about scissoring red tape and trimming taxes. The resulting focus has understandably been on education, prisons and growth-management oversight. Then throw in Scott’s trashing of “Obamacare,” “Obamarail,” a prescription drug monitoring program, beach renourishment, unemployment benefits and a scrutinizing media.

No wonder it’s easy to overlook another Scott Administration sub-plot associated with business incentives and job creation. Scott has been seriously suggesting “an economic development” electricity rate for companies that agree to move to Florida or expand within it. Reduced utility costs would be linked to job creation.

But it would be ironic–if not disingenuous–if this state’s investor-owned utilities would have to absorb the lost revenue and become de facto subsidizers of the business-recruitment push. Well, word is they wouldn’t. Any corporate reductions would be offset by higher rates to other customers, mostly the residential sector.

Look for the retiree sector (read: AARP) to add its activist voice to the protest babel if this “suggestion” gets traction. And look for further criticism of the already maligned Public Service Commission.

Let’s give credit where credit is due–but let’s not overdo it yet.

Thanks to an eminently sensible decision by the Obama Administration via U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Tampa International Airport has now been designated “gateway” status (along with Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, New Orleans, Pittsburgh and San Juan) for direct flights to Cuba. The incumbent “gateways” are in Miami, New York and Los Angeles. Given that the Tampa Bay area, home to more than 80,000 Cuban-Americans, is the third largest such demographic in the country, it just makes sense. Especially in the aftermath of the Administration’s 2009 move to lift many of the travel restrictions to Cuba.

Locals should not have to travel to Miami to fly to Cuba. Now, starting this summer or fall, they won’t.

Good for all those directly impacted, and good for this area and international flight-challenged TIA. And it will only grow. South Florida has been averaging more than 300,000 travelers flying to Cuba through Miami International. It is estimated that nearly a third are from the Tampa Bay region. “Once people know we are an international community, we can build off that,” underscored TIA Director Joe Lopiano.

This ruling applies largely to Cuban-Americans (who have had money-transfer as well as family-visit curbs lifted) plus those traveling to Cuba for educational, cultural or religious activities–as well as those traveling for medical or agricultural business.

The bottom line: This largely undoes what the Bush Administration had done. But surely the goal is beyond hurdling a geopolitical bar set that low.

Now what about everybody else? Uncategorized Americans can travel to, say, Iran but not Cuba. This makes as much sense as including Cuba (circa Cold War) on this country’s official State Sponsors of Terrorism list. The other SST members: Sudan, Syria and — Iran. Obviously a lot more Administration work remains in restoring a basic American right to travel beyond our own shores, including to a non-threatening destination 90 miles away.

And notice the stark contrast in responses to the TIA announcement from U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Little Havana, who actually tried to prevent this common-sense change, and U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Tampa, who worked to implement it.

Clinging to the SST cover, Rubio disingenuously sniffed that “Increasing direct or charter aircraft flights with state sponsors of terrorism is totally irresponsible.” (Note the operative verb “increasing.” Direct flights from Miami would have remained had Rubio prevailed with his recent FAA funding-bill amendment.) Reportedly, no members of the Ros-Lehtinen or Diaz-Balart families were disappointed with either his FAA effort or his TIA-inclusion characterization.

And ironically, any person-to-person increase between those stuck on the Castros’ island and those coming from its ideological opposite on the American mainland would be helpful for inroads of change. It’s what increased contact with the outside world always induces, including a freer flow of information. All but the chauvinistic, South Florida family-feuders see the connection.

As for Castor, she saw this as a win-win for Tampa Bay. “This is great news for our community, our economy and the Cuban-American families who for years had to endure the burden and cost of traveling through Miami,” she noted.

State Role

But while so much of Cuban policy necessarily emanates out of Washington, some of it is actually home grown. For example, the Florida Legislature’s passage of the law that bars academics at Florida’s public universities and colleges from going to Cuba, even if they use private funds. That was in 2006 — three years before the Obama Administration began liberalizing Bush-era travel restrictions.

While the 2011 Legislature is charged with cost-cutting and budget-balancing to square a $3.6-billion deficit, here’s hoping that it can find the time and priorities necessary to repeal the ban on academics visiting Cuba. How “Floriduh” to have the Obama Administration allowing more Floridians to visit Cuba and fly out of TIA even as this state restricts is academics from doing so.

But it won’t, obviously, be easy in this Legislature. Recall who sponsored the academic travel ban in 2006. Florida Senate President — and, more importantly, 2012 GOP U.S. Senate candidate — Mike Haridopolos. Yeah, THAT Mike Whoreadopolis, who has been on a Rick Scott and tea party pander-bender since changing his mind on high-speed rail.

Perfect Storm

For two generations too many Florida politicians have considered Cuban issues as a political third rail.  That meant letting Little Havana continue to dictate U.S. foreign policy and not making waves unless they wanted to incur unnecessary political wrath. If playing it politically compliant and safe meant being complicit in counter-productive geopolitical and humanitarian policies, so be it.

But with real civilizational enemies, more political clout along I-4 than in South Florida and a recession that has hammered Florida, there’s even less reason to still maintain a Cold War policy vis-a-vis Cuba.

More America-to-Cuba travel means more interaction means more hope. It also accelerates the inevitable end of the economic embargo. History beckons whether the Rubios and Haridopoloses heed it or not. Call it the approaching perfect storm. Imagine, doing the right thing for humanitarian reasons is also the right geopolitical, economic and democracy-advancing thing to do as well.

How frustrating that there’s still an ongoing stare-down between Florida and the national Republican and Democratic parties about primary dates. There are even GOPster officials who want to pull next year’s national convention here in Tampa if Florida doesn’t back off and accept its rubber-stamp status in the nominating process. Put it this way: Any candidate needs Florida to be elected president, but Florida, more often than not, is relegated to playing a bit role in nominating one. Makes less sense than a Michelle Bachman-for-president rationale. You’d have to be “Floriduh” to accept this exercise in political irrelevance.

Frankly, it’s in the enlightened self-interest of the political parties, not just leverage-conscious Florida, to have the Sunshine State go early. Especially for the non-incumbent Republicans. And if other states demand to follow suit, they can simply be told by the RNC adults in charge that they are not Florida–for all the manifestly obvious reasons.

Would a responsible national party really want, as Sen. Marco Rubio–ironically–pointed out recently, to chance nominating someone who might not be “palatable” in Florida?  Florida is the indispensible swing state that any presidential nominee must have. “As goes the I-4 corridor, so goes the country” is more than hyperbolic sloganeering. An early Florida primary would be meaningfully important–not symbolically noteworthy. Florida is a political mettle-detector and national barometer–not a quadrennial tradition more akin to a political Ground Hog’s Day.

This state is demographically representative of the country. Ethnically, racially and politically.  Something neither Iowa nor New Hampshire, the first-in-the-nation caucus and primary, respectively, are. Nor are we sufficiently skewed that we qualify as minority window-dressing–such as South Carolina and Nevada.