In his column last week, Gary Fineout did Democratic primary voters a service that few journalists in Florida have done in recent years — he gave us actual substance to compare two candidates on. Because Dave Aronberg and Dan Gelber served in the Senate together this year, Fineout was able to easily compare them on a number of key issues that came before the body.
At first glance, the two candidates appear to be relatively similar — both are experienced Democrats who have been leaders in the party, who have a strong record of fighting Republicans and who who have strong followings in the Netroots. Strangely enough, though, they have some notable differences in their voting record. You would think they’d vote similarly and they probably do on a lot of issues, but on the nine bills Fineout compared them on, the two men voted differently on five of them.
They agreed on SB1122, which “requires insurers to pay directly to doctors even if the doctor is not in the insurer network (both voted yes); SB714, the condominium insurance bill (yes); putting a cap on attorney fees in workers’ compensation cases (no); and the state budget (no). The other bills they differed on and the difference reflects poorly on Aronberg.
Aronberg voted for HB1171 the insurance deregulation bill, while Gelber voted no. I’m a strong opponent of any kind of deregulation and generally think that, in most areas, Florida doesn’t regulate enough. When deregulation takes place, things almost always get worse for consumers and taxpayers.
Aronberg voted for HB1495, the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund and Citizens bill, while Gelber voted no. While the cat fund part of the bill seems fine, the problem is that the bill allows Citizens to raise rates on consumers during the middle of a bad economic crisis.
Aronberg voted for SB360, the growth management bill that is an environmental nightmare, while Gelber voted no. This may be one of the worst bills in the 2009 session and Aronberg was clearly on the wrong side of it.
Aronberg voted for SB1696, the higher education bill, while Gelber voted no. The bill isn’t all bad, but it forces students to try to graduate quicker — speaking as a higher educator, usually when a student is taking longer to graduate its for personal or financial reasons or because they have yet to figure out what the best career path is for themselves. Forcing someone to make a choice like that almost never works out for the best. The bill also makes it harder for students to try to establish residency to pay in-state tuition, which is nothign more than a tax on students that goes by another name. Finally, the bill allows universities to increase out-of-state or graduate tuition at a higher rate, another attempt to balance the budget on the backs of people who have lesser ability to cover the costs.
Finally, Aronberg voted for CS/HB453 which allows tax dollars to be use to fund scholarships that go to vouchers, while Gelber voted no. Obviously, the use of government revenue to fund vouchers is a bad idea. Taking money, especially in tight times, out of public education and giving it to private schools is bad policy, it hurts schools and it violates basic democratic principles of fairness and equality.
Aronberg’s votes here are troubling and if it turns out these are part of a bigger pattern, I’ll have to revise my earlier endorsement and go with Gelber. I’ve seen and heard Aronberg do the right thing frequently on other issues and bills, but these are some key bills being discussed here and Aronberg too frequently didn’t do the right thing.
I’m Kenneth Quinnell and I approve this message.
Read more on Florida politics at the Florida Progressive Coalition blog (http://flaprogressives.org) and the Florida Progressive Coalition Wiki (http://quinnell.us/sspb/wiki/).
