WSJ Weighs In on Florida's Property Tax Debacle

As a state lawmaker, you know you've made the big time when the Wall Street Journal's editorial board singles your tax ideas out for attention. A June 30 WSJ editorial (sorry, no link for nonsubscribers) takes note of Florida's property tax situation:

Florida family incomes have risen by a healthy 37% since 2001, but average property tax bills have climbed by 83%. In some communities, such as Boynton Beach, average property tax bills have tripled in seven years. Politicians tell of town hall meetings where angry constituents announce they are literally being taxed out of their homes.

The Journal notes approvingly that lawmakers have voted to cut property taxes-- but sees a danger ahead:

The catch is that this must be approved by 60% of the voters in a January 2008 ballot referendum. And already the liberal interests that feast on local spending -- government employee unions, contractors and local politicians -- are predicting Armageddon for schools and city services if the tax cuts are enacted.
House Speaker Marco Rubio, who has led the charge for property tax relief, says local governments have already spent $24 million of taxpayer money to lobby against the initiative.
With many municipal budgets having doubled in size over the past eight years, many Floridians are unimpressed with these sudden exclamations of empty city wallets. Taxpayer groups point to numerous examples of flush spending by cities and counties in recent years, including $32 million for a new municipal golf course in Palm Beach -- a county that already has 160 courses.

So, the Journal's story is basically the same as Rubio's: local governments are crying wolf. They've made out like bandits over this decade, and are terrified that the fat times will end. But in the end (the Journal's narrative goes), they'll be able to trim the fat in a way that makes these tax cuts eminently unaffordable.

The missing link here, of course, is a sense of what's happening to state tax collections--and state aid to local governments. The narrative the other side is telling is that the state has enacted a raft of unaffordable tax cuts over the past decade, and has paid for them by cutting state aid to locals--which has inevitably meant that locals must hike their property taxes just to pay for basic services. Is the other side correct? Maybe-- I haven't seen a compelling statistical argument on this front, but that doesn't mean it's not out there. But the WSJ is following the Rubio party line by pretending that cuts in state aid aren't even part of the story.