Politically Homeless

This blog is created as a forum for the increasingly large number of voters in Marion County, Florida who consider themselves to be "Politically Homeless". We are individuals who are frustrated with political parties and discouraged by "politics as usual". Many of us have no registered party affiliation. Others stay registered with a party only to vote in primaries, but no longer identify with the party's current political direction. We encourage you to post your comments.

Saturday, December 17, 2005

The Blog In 2006: We Want Your Thoughts

The folks administering our blog tell us comments may slow down a bit during the Christmas and New Year Holidays. Too many things for bloggers to do…shopping, traveling, parties, bowl games, etc. However, we would love to prove them wrong about our holiday blog activity.

This might be a good time to reflect on the first six months of Politically Homeless, and what we can do better in 2006. So let us know:

Anything we should do to improve the blog?

Also, during the Holiday time, give some thought to what you would like to see discussed on the blog as we begin the New Year. Obviously, being an election year, we will have much to cover about candidates and issues. However, give us your input and comments on:

What are some of the key issues/topics you would like us to cover in the coming year?

Who’s The Blog Master?

A few bloggers are continuing to have some fun speculating the identity of the Blog Master. The only way to know the identity of the Blog Master with certainty is for someone to hack into the blog’s operating system. That has already been unsuccessfully attempted. So whoever tried it…please remember, this is illegal! The Politically Homeless site and all of the bloggers contributing to our blog are "very secure".

The Blog Master role will be turned over to different individuals during what we hope to be a long life for our Politically Homeless blog. The person(s) in that role today will most likely not be the same person(s) a year or so from now.

The introduction of new approaches/ideas is important to keep a blog like ours active. We already have volunteers who would like to be future Blog Masters; some of them might even surprise you!

Thursday, December 01, 2005

Domestic Partner Benefits For State Employees: Your Opinion?

[NOTE: This section of the blog is full. You can continue to review the comments made to date. However, to add your comments, please go to: "Domestic Partner Benefits For State Employees (Cont.)—January 17”]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The University of Florida-Board of Trustees is being asked to approve extending health insurance coverage to domestic partners of gay and lesbian employees. The coverage would also be extended to unmarried, heterosexual couples.

No other public universities in Florida offer such benefits. UF officials say they must provide this benefit to be able to “compete on a national basis”. Needless to say, this proposed policy has created much controversial discussion.

It is still unclear whether or not any state funds (i.e., from us taxpayers) will be used to cover the annual cost ($500,000 to $1 million) of extending health care benefits. There is some speculation that the health benefits would be covered by money from the UF Foundation, Federal Grants, and discretionary funds. You can bet, sooner or later when the “outside sources” of money run out, the state is going to be asked to pick up the health coverage costs.

State Representative Larry Cretul, Ocala, expressed his concern about the extension of benefits to domestic partners in a pointed letter to the Board of Trustees. Rep. Cretul also expressed concern about the longer-range legal and financial precedent this has for our state. To address the situation, he will introduce a bill in this Legislative Session that basically “prohibits any taxpayer money being used for extending domestic-partner benefits to state employees”.

Our December question is focused on the above issue:

Should the state of Florida pay for benefit coverage for domestic partners of unmarried, gay or heterosexual employees? Why or why not?

Tell us what you think!

"Sunsetting" State Agencies: A Good Idea?

Our Florida House of Representatives leaders have called for legislation requiring the review of state agencies every eight years - and abolishing those that outlive their usefulness.

The new law, called the “Government Accountability Act”, would create a 12-member commission: five senators, five representatives and two outside appointees chosen by the speaker and Senate president. The Legislature would set an eight-year timetable for each agency's review. The commission would recommend whether agencies should stay the same, reorganize, get new duties, shed old ones, be merged or be abolished.

Unless the Legislature acted, departments would automatically be abolished. Legislators could change the schedule, triggering a review in less than eight years. The eight-year timetable coincides with the term limits of legislators, governors and Cabinet officers. In most cases, it would mean a department would have to justify itself to virtually a whole new Legislature each time it came up for reauthorization.

Departments headed by constitutional officers, such as the attorney general or chief justice, would be exempt from abolition.

Texas set up a review commission in 1977 and since then has consolidated 11 agencies while abolishing 47 agencies or boards. Texas has saved an estimated $736.9 million by eliminating agencies or functions of departments.

Florida has had a more limited procedure known as "sunset" for periodic review of laws governing departments and agencies that have regulatory powers and "sundown" for review of boards, commissions and councils created to advise state agencies. The Legislature has created new agencies and merged old ones, but there is no mandated abolition of departments in current law.

We would like to know what you think about this proposed legislation:

Are you supportive of the “Government Accountability Act” for improving the effectiveness of our state government? Why or why not?