The Fine Print

The looming budget battle in Florida: A primer

Well, here we go.

After watching the prelude for weeks, the Florida Legislature and its Republican leaders will finally put pen to paper this week (so to speak) and release their detailed spending plans for the coming fiscal year.

After listening to leaders in the House and Senate discuss their priorities, the expectations are that the rival budgets could be widely divergent in what they cut, what they keep and what they enhance.

There are a multiple reasons for that, whether it's Senate President Joe Negron's push for increased money for state universities, or House Speaker Richard Corcoran's insistence that the state shutter its economic development agency Enterprise Florida.

But less noticed is that the House, Senate and Gov. Rick Scott have chosen to include information that supports their arguments, while seemingly sidestepping other salient points. This could influence the tenor of the debate that is about to intensify.

So it might be worthwhile and step back for just a second to recall how everybody got here and what's important to remember for the budget battle that still lies ahead.

So here's a few things to understand:

DON'T CALL IT A DEFICIT: There is no budget deficit this year. Plain and simple.

To understand the underlying budget situation, it's important to realize this. In Florida a deficit occurs when the state collects less money than what is needed to pay for things that are in the budget.

Florida's tax collections are in fact growing. The main budget account - known as the general revenue account - is expected to grow in the current fiscal year by 4.4 percent, or $1.23 billion.  This same account, which relies on a variety of tax sources but primarily the state's sales tax, is expected to grow $1.16 billion - or 3.9 percent - in the fiscal year that starts on July 1. That's a stark difference from the depths of The Great Recession when legislators were required to cut spending (or in 2009 raises taxes) to make the math work.

So then where does the confusion lie?

Well, let's start with a document called the Long-Range Financial Outlook. Thanks to current Sen. Tom Lee, the voters in 2006 approved a constitutional amendment that requires the development of an outlook that looks out over a three-year period and reviews both sides of the ledger - the expected spending and the revenue coming in.

The outlook comes out once a year. The one approved in September found that when balanced together legislators had a windfall of only $7.5 million for the 2017-18 fiscal year. And the economists and analysts who put it together warned of a "structural imbalance" that could create a sizable budget gap in the years to follow. That has sparked talk of deep budget cuts including a House plan to cut at least $1.4 billion alone in the coming year.

But it's important to remember this budget gap is a summary of both revenues - and expenses.

The long-range outlook put together assumes nearly 50 different expenditures - and that greatly impacts the bottom line.

Let's start with tax cuts: The overall outlook assumes that there will be $254 million in recurring tax cuts in each of the next three years. This is based on a historical average in recent years, but the point is this, part of the projected gap is based on the assumption that legislators will continue to cut taxes, which adds to the potential shortfall, which helps trigger the need for cuts elsewhere to close that gap.

The budget shortfall or gap that is projected to occur is also driven by a long line of other spending decisions where economists plugged in the numbers based on historical decisions made by legislators: The outlook assumes a $1 billion reserve on top of other existing budget reserves. It assumes that legislators will fully fund increased enrollment in public schools, pay for increases in Medicaid, and set aside more than $400 million over the next three years to pay for increased costs associated with the state employee health insurance program.

But there's more - the outlook assumes an increase of per-student funding above enrollment growth, grants to libraries and museums, local government park grants, and in the out years money spent on replacing a law-enforcement radio system and the replacement of Florida's accounting system.

So what does that mean? In reality, the budget debate is one about choices.

Do legislators choose to keep cutting taxes? Do they choose to keep spending money on certain things? Do they choose to make deep cuts due to a philosophical belief that government is too big and too expensive? Do they refuse to revisit past decisions that contribute to their structural imbalance - including for example - decisions to give out tax credits to various businesses. This could include anything from the insurance tax credit that is targeted by the Senate, or the tax credit scholarship program that continues to grow. (The amount of tax credits available for the scholarship program is projected to increase from $559 million this fiscal year to nearly $699 million next year.)

THE SCHOOL TAX DEBATE:  If there is one item that could derail the entire budget process it's the thorny annual dilemma over school property taxes.

Here's the problem: As property values rise, this translates into more money collected by local school districts that could be spent on public schools. In other words, if the value of your home goes up you will pay more in taxes in the coming year - unless the tax rate is lowered by an equal amount to offset the increase in values.

Legislators don't appropriate this local property tax money - BUT - they do draw up spending plans that assumes a mixture of both local and state funding. This is known as the Florida Education Finance Program or FEFP and districts that wish to draw down the state funding must collect a certain amount of money. (This is known as the required local effort or RLE.)

Republican leaders, including Scott, have used these increased local tax dollars to boost the overall amount spent on public schools. Some legislators have defended the practice by noting when property values plunged during the Great Recession that the state helped offset the loss (but not completely.) 

But Corcoran has vowed that he will not let this happen this year - and he's taken a much stronger stance on this than practically every other spending item in play.

Important piece of history: Corcoran was chief of staff for then-House Speaker Marco Rubio when the Legislature waged a lengthy debate over property taxes during a time when Florida's real-estate market was super heated. The position of the GOP-controlled Legislature at the time was pretty simple: If local governments take in more tax dollars because of rising values, then it's a tax increase. Legislators forced cities and counties to roll back their tax rates. So Corcoran is being consistent with that position. (Also worth noting: Several senators, then in the Florida House, also took that position. Dennis Baxley, Anitere Flores, Bill Galvano, Denise Grimsley and Perry Thurston voted in favor of the bill to force local tax rollbacks.)

Scott has maintained that this isn't a tax increase and his own budget recommendation relies on nearly $558 million in increased local school taxes to help pay for an overall 3 percent increase in per-student funding. Scott has tried to suggest this is no different than if the price of a car goes up and you pay higher taxes  because of the higher price. Yeah, but the government doesn't set the price of a car. In this instance government at both the state and local level have a hand in deciding how much property owners will spend.

BREAKING DOWN OTHER FLASHPOINTS...Quick hits on remaining things to look for and understand:

GAMBLING: Right now all these budget projections being thrown out do not assume any changes in Florida's gambling laws or a new compact with the Seminole Tribe. That means if - and it's a pretty big if - legislators could stroke a deal with the Seminoles and the rest of the players in the seemingly intractable gambling turf war it could provide an injection of cash that could help smooth things over.

GULF COAST SPILL MONEY: While this may not command a lot of attention around the state, the ongoing tug-of-war over money the state received as part of a settlement over the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is part of the overall dynamic that will decide how this session ends up. The state last year got $400 million as its first installment. Under an existing law some $300 million is supposed to go to eight Panhandle counties that were impacted the most by the spill. But the Legislature has to yet to agree to send the money out the door.

Corcoran and House leaders didn't like the arrangement allowed under the existing law so they have crafted a bill that places more oversight on the spending - and prohibits any of the money being used on economic development projects. The Senate so far has a different approach and they have not agreed to all the House restrictions. This money is a big, big deal to the Panhandle Republicans and in Tallahassee parlance - this is their going home bill - meaning they can't go home unless they get it worked out.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: This item has gotten plenty of press especially since it has triggered a feud between Scott - who wants to keep funding intact for the state's economic development agency - and House leaders who want to eliminate Enterprise Florida and scale back Visit Florida, the tourism marking agency. The Senate so far is siding with Scott. The question is will they remain in sync with the governor all the way to the finish line.

HIGHER EDUCATION: Negron's bid to increase funding to state universities as part of an effort to propel them into the top ranks of the nation's public colleges is going to be rebuffed by House leaders who contend that universities are misspending what they have now (some of which came with the help of legislators who placed projects into university spending lines.) The one word of caution in this debate is that numbers get thrown around sometimes without a clear sense of what they mean.

Universities are dependent on several streams of funding and it appears so far that the House is lumping everything in to make an argument about overall spending. There are differences between straight state funding and the money that universities take in from other sources - whether it's tuition, money from federal grants, or money medical schools earn from seeing patients. For example, the amount of tuition money can go up even if the rates don't because universities admit more students. T

The House has zeroed in on spending among the foundations and whether it's proper for the universities to use state funding to subsidize fundraising operations. So far, the universities have had a muted response and not given a clear explanation as to practice. One big question is whether or not the House will advocate for blocking universities from using their foundations to pay university employees above state limits.

TRUST FUNDS: It's important to remember that some taxes and fees charged by the state don't wind up in the main budget account. Instead they are set aside in what are known as trust funds. Year in and year out special interests groups argue that money collected in these funds belong to them. And year after year the Legislature politely ignores this and transfers money of these trust funds and uses to help balance the budget.

SPEND NOW, PAY LATER? Unlike the federal government, Florida is required to have a balanced budget every year. That doesn't mean of course the state doesn't have debt. It does.

Until Scott came into office, past governors and legislators authorized borrowing for fixed capital costs such as building college buildings, roads and acquiring environmentally-sensitive lands. Scott started drawing a firm line about this and led the charge to push down the state's debt load. As of last June, it was $24.1 billion or more than $4 billion lower than it was when Scott came into office.

Negron's plan to build a reservoir south of Lake Okeechobee calls for increased borrowing. Currently the bill moving authorizes more than $3 billion in bonding authority to go to various projects, but with an estimated $1.2 billion going to the reservoir project. But that's not what is needed right away in this year's budget.

If the plan is approved it would carry an estimated $100 million price-tag to this year's budget since the bonds would be paid back over 20 years in installments.

So Negron's plan has an immediate cost to the treasury, but it's also important to understand that the full amount of his project will not included in this year's budget.

BOTTOM LINE: Under the current schedule legislators are operating under the House and Senate are expected to pass their budgets during the second week of April.

That week is already truncated because of religious holidays so it is highly unlikely that any negotiations or work can begin until April 17. That means legislators will have about 15 days to get everything worked out in order to get a budget finished on time. That's because Florida law requires the budget to be finished 72 hours before the final vote.

So that's a lot of ground to cover in a short amount of time. Besides the above-mentioned topics there's other issues at play, including pay raises, more money for charter schools etc.

The clock is ticking.

What will Rick Scott version 5.0 look like?

This Friday another era comes to a close for Florida Gov. Rick Scott.

That's when Melissa Sellers will give way to Kim McDougal (both pictured left) as McDougal takes on the sometimes overwhelming job as chief of staff for Scott.

Sellers, who once worked for former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, is remaining in Tallahassee and opening her own consulting firm.

This much is clear: McDougal and Sellers have different backgrounds, different resumes and different styles. McDougal is a veteran state employee who has spent most of her career focused on education and only recently made a deep dive into the political realm.

The big change for her came in 2014 when she went on leave from her job in the governor's office as an education analyst to help with Scott's re-election campaign. McDougal helped draw up Scott's education platform for his campaign but she was deeply involved with Scott's tightrope walk on how to deal with Common Core.

One of McDougal's jobs that summer was to meet with groups deeply opposed to Common Core, which still remain embedded in the standards that Florida is using in its public schools. McDougal's outreach was successful enough to win an endorsement from one of the groups on the eve of the election. (Which was probably important in a contest decided by just 64,000 votes out of 6 million cast.)

Because of her lengthy experience the expectation is that McDougal will retain her oversight of education matters for Scott. And that probably means no dramatic swings away from current policies or a need to make any big personnel changes. (Scott has been a pretty firm supporter of Education Commissioner Pam Stewart.)

Word is that after the departures of Sellers and General Counsel Tim Cerio other people working in the governor's office - including Deputy Chief of Staff (and former Louisiana resident) Frank Collins will remain in their same roles.

But the real big question for Capitol insiders - and ultimately Floridians - is whether or not Gov. Scott will pivot once again with a new chief of staff in place.

Because one of the most interesting aspects of Scott's five-plus years in office is that he has been willing to alter his style, his interactions and sometimes even his policies based on the input from those closest to him at the time.

There are those who speculate that Sellers will remain a trusted voice and may be doing a warm up routine for a potential 2018 U.S. Senate run for Scott. (Although there is a division of opinion about this as well.)

Another maxim, however, is that "no one gets out of Scott World alive." This means that once someone is removed from the orbit of influence it's impossible to get back in. (Key example: Sellers was Scott's campaign manager during a time when he was focused on the campaign. After the re-election, he installed her in as chief of staff in place of Adam Hollingsworth. Word is that Hollingsworth didn't know this was coming.)

Going all the way back to the start there are clear lines of demarcation for Scott when one person leaves and another steps in.

His first few months in 2011 Scott was combative with the press, with the Legislature and came on strong with a Tea Party influenced agenda that including killing high speed rail between Tampa and Orlando. Lobbyists were barred from meeting with Scott and top governor's office staff. The chief of staff at the time was officially Mike Prendergast, but the view is that the person who had the most influence at the time was his senior adviser Mary Anne Carter. Carter was a complete outsider to Tallahassee and once she left her position she didn't hang around in town.

But Prendergast (and Carter) were followed by Steve MacNamara, a long-time veteran of the Tallahassee scene who has been a university professor, a lobbyist and held stints as the chief of staff for two legislative leaders. It was MacNamara who tried to ease tensions with the press and tried to steer Scott into a more cooperative relationship with the Legislature. The blanket ban on lobbyists was lifted. Suddenly Scott was dressing more informally and holding lengthy sessions with the media in the governor's office. Scott visited newspaper editorial boards and scheduled work days to interact with normal Floridians.

MacNamara, however, departed in the summer of 2012 amid a series of articles detailing his role in contracts and his interactions with agencies. (Later it would be revealed in emails that MacNamara's influence with Scott was severely tested during the 2012 session of the Florida Legislature. Emails showed that MacNamara tried in vain to get the governor to veto a bill creating Florida Polytechnic University while encouraging him to approve a bill that would have given additional tuition raising power to University of Florida and Florida State University.)

He was followed by Hollingsworth, whose main job was to figure out how to rehabilitate Scott in such a way that he would have a shot at getting re-elected even though poll numbers suggested it was near impossible task. Hollingsworth was seen as someone who would quickly urge Scott to deal with potential problems and embarrassments heading into the 2014 elections. Former Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll has said it was Hollingsworth who showed up to tell her that the governor wanted to resign following her questioning by law-enforcement authorities investigating a veterans charity engaged in what was deemed to be illegal gambling. (The charity had hired Carroll before she ran with Scott but no charges were ever brought against her.)

Hollingsworth was at the helm during one of Scott's most notable moments during his first term: His complete 180-degree turn on Medicaid expansion and the Affordable Care Act pushed by President Barack Obama. Even today, it remains somewhat remarkable that Scott - who railed against Obamacare and even had run television ads attacking it - would come out publicly in favor of accepting billions in federal aid to expand who was eligible for Medicaid. (Under Sellers - and after his re-election - Scott would reverse course again and side with the Florida House in 2015 in opposition to Medicaid expansion.)

Other pivots, not as dramatic, also occurred such as Scott's decision to back in-state tuition rates for the children of illegal immigrants despite winning election in a 2010 platform that promised support for a crackdown on illegal immigration.

Starting under Hollingsworth (who brought on Sellers to serve as communications director) and continuing ever since she took over, Scott returned to limiting interactions with the press in Tallahassee. He cut down on appearances on conservative radio stations and instead shifted to appearances on national television outlets. And a combative side of Scott returned. He sued the federal government over Medicaid funding and he ordered an investigation of Planned Parenthood clinics last summer. Scott has ratcheted back up his criticisms of Obama. His push to get rid of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Commissioner led to allegations, apologies and lawsuits.

Yet ever since his re-election and Sellers ascension to chief of staff Scott has had a difficult time with his fellow Republicans in the Legislature and has had trouble winning passage of his priorities. There's lots of finger-pointing as to who is to blame (is it staff? Is it Scott's decision to not raise money for the state party? Is it ideologues in the House?) but the net result is that his two top priorities this year, including a $250 million business incentive pool, were largely ignored by legislators. There are some who say that Scott is isolated from those in the GOP and that has contributed to the problem.

But this month Scott did make a tactical decision to limit his losses. Instead of drawing out the battle he signed this year's state budget and did not engage in the long line of budget vetoes that some lawmakers had been expecting. (Senate budget chairman Tom Lee predicted $500 million in vetoes at one point and Scott did roughly half that.) Talk of possible veto overrides has disappeared and the good thing for Scott is that legislators probably won't return to the Capitol until November.

The governor still has a tremendous amount of time left in his second term in office so there's plenty of time for him to repair relations if he wants to. By tapping McDougal he has found someone who has a good idea about how the capital works - but is less familiar with the political ramifications of every decision that the governor makes.

Scott of course will continue to place a large part of his focus on the state's economy and job creation since it's the message that has helped him in two elections (and remains a top concern for most Floridians.)

But will he take a more pragmatic approach on dealing with the Legislature, dealing with the press, and figuring out what to do in the myriad of issues that confront him on a daily basis? For example: One of the less touched on elements of Sellers time as chief of staff is that Scott brought in Julie Jones to run the Department of Corrections. While problems remains in the state's troubled prison agency, there are signs that Jones has tried to reform the department (although she too lost out this session on getting the Legislature to bless all of here proposed changes.)

So the question is will Scott change direction yet again with McDougal now on board?

Will the next two and a half years be relatively quiet and will the governor and McDougal have a caretaker attitude, or will there be new initiatives, new promises, and new conflicts with the two incoming legislative leaders? The next House speaker - Richard Corcoran - has a lengthy list of contentious items he wants to tackle that could prove challenging for Scott.

Will Scott - who never had been a politician until running for governor - present Floridians with another version of himself? Or will he stick to what he's given voters so far?

Gov. Rick Scott's script for 2016

It's always been an open secret that Florida Gov. Rick Scott sticks to a script when he talks in public, especially when he occasionally answers questions from the press.

A reminder of that came recently when his office posted copies of what it calls "Driving Message" in response to a public records request by Tampa Bay Times reporter Steve Bousquet.

The information from October and November is essentially a rolling set of questions on topics/news of the day that includes the answer that Scott is supposed to be given when asked. The responses cover everything from campus carry gun legislation to what he thinks about GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump and why he's opposed to raising the minimum wage. ("Increasing the minimum wage will result in losing jobs.")

And the answers included in the documents are exactly what Scott has said about the various topics, whether it's a question about suspending school grades or the handling of Syrian refugees by federal government.

The talking points also give a small amount of insight about how Scott may handle issues in the near future.

The remarks, for instance, say he's not endorsing any GOP candidates for president "today" but they include praise for Trump despite the criticism aimed at the businessman from fellow GOP candidates such as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush.

"I think people in Washington are trying to figure out why Trump is doing so well, but the reality is he is saying what he thinks. He is not being politically correct. I think a lot of people find that refreshing," state Scott's talking points.

Coupled with other things he has said about Trump _ and the fact that some of his own key supporters/campaign people are now working for him _ it would be plausible for Scott to endorse him ahead of the March GOP primary in Florida. (Although Scott has generally avoided getting involved in primaries given his own bitter, divisive primary for governor back in 2010 when he ran against establishment-backed candidate Bill McCollum.)

The answers included in the document regarding a bill that would allow concealed weapon holders to bring their guns on university campuses suggests that the Scott administration may have some doubts about the legislation. ("I am not sure there is a silver bullet solution, but college should be a safe place students go to learn, not a place of violence.")

But the main question is whether Scott and his team will revise this script as they head into 2016 and a session that starts in less than two weeks.

His talking points on tax cuts, hospital transparency, the proposed deal with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, and Enterprise Florida reforms don't fully explain Scott's logic. In other words, how exactly will Scott sell this?

Despite a contentious 2015 session that saw the GOP-controlled Legislature pare back, or ignore completely, many of his recommendations, Scott actually is pushing ahead with a more detailed agenda this upcoming session than he has during the last few years. And that creates plenty of potential flashpoints in the weeks and months ahead.

There's no doubt that his $1 billion tax cut package and his request of $250 million for business incentives are his top priorities as Scott makes a case to diversify the state's economy. He will make the argument in January - during a tour to emphasize job growth under his watch - that the state's economic recovery will not hold if more isn't done.

The problem for Scott and his team is that there is a wide divide in the House and Senate (which has been unable to agree on many top issues in the past year) on the right approach of so many of the items on Scott's 2016 checklist.

Gambling? It's not clear that there's enough votes in the Senate for the $3 billion deal proposed by Scott that would give craps and roulette to the Seminoles. But the House may not go along with the deal unless it includes a constitutional amendment that bars any future expansion. Senate President Andy Gardiner has said he's not sure there's enough votes in the Senate to pass such an amendment.

Business incentives? While the House and Senate may be willing to endorse Scott's "reforms" in regards to process, the idea of placing such a large amount of money in the governor's hands is viewed suspiciously by some House conservatives who consider incentives an intrusion into the marketplace.

Tax cuts? The amount is a hard goal to reach without making cuts elsewhere in the budget - which is something that legislators about to hit the campaign trail don't want hanging over their head. Another complication is that there is growing resistance to the reliance on increased local property taxes to help pay for school funding. House and Senate leaders say they like "tax cuts," but there is also divergence on whether those cuts should be more directed at individuals, not companies as Scott has largely proposed.

Hospital transparency? Scott's ongoing efforts to go after Florida's hospitals - including a price cap - includes some proposals that may strike some conservatives as intrusive government regulation not a free-market solution. House leaders have been pushing policies that they say will open up health care to more competition, while top Senate Republicans seem to have little interest in any of the ideas.

Scott, of course, has his veto pen as the ultimate bargaining tool as he deals with recalcitrant legislators.

The decision of Jesse Panuccio to resign from his job as the head of the Department of Economic Opportunity rather than confront a messy confirmation battle removed one potential point of leverage for the Florida Senate. But there are other agency heads whose adherence to Scott's agenda and seeming resistance to legislative instructions may make it difficult for them to survive what could be a messy session.

If the Legislature were in fact able to put together a budget quickly and present it to Scott before the end of the 60-day session, it would create a conundrum for the governor. He would be forced to act on legislative budget priorities within 7 days which would give lawmakers the ability to decide whether to approve some of Scott's top priorities based on how he handled the budget.

Another problem for Scott is that the consuming lobbying frenzy over the compact with the Seminole Tribe may distract legislators as they try to cobble together enough votes to pass something. (One possible solution is to have lawmakers pass the main compact, with the promise they will pass bills in 2017 to deal with other parts of the gambling industry.)

As all of this unfolds during the next two months, the question is whether Scott and his team will provide new answers, new insights and new arguments to counter the pushback that the governor is going to likely encounter.

Or will Scott stick to his oft-repeated line that he used time and time again where he will say that he expects the Legislature to "do the right thing" and vote exactly how he wants them to without explaining how, or why legislators should do that.

Maybe that will be the "driving message" that needs to be answered later in 2016.

'Everything is awesome' in the Florida Legislature: Broken promises, triangulation and the road ahead

Late last week, music started blaring over the sound system at the Florida House of Representatives:

"Everything is awesome, everything is cool when you're part of a team. Everything is awesome, when you're living out a dream."

Since the song was likely chosen by Kathy Mears, the chief of staff for House Speaker Steve Crisafulli you can be fairly confident that it was chosen for the rich irony the lyrics say about the current budget stalemate that has thrown the Florida Legislature into a bit of chaos (and which will likely result in a special session.)

The origins of the standoff - over health care funding, hospital dollars and the connection to Medicaid expansion linked to Obamacare - can at times seem bewildering and confusing.

Here's what not confusing:

Despite the promises of pleasantries, the divide between the two chambers is real.

And a copy of Crisafulli's script from his closed door meeting last week with House GOP legislators bears that out.

Crisafulli makes it clear that the House did not have a lot of warning that Medicaid expansion would be in this year's legislative mix. Senate President Andy Gardiner opened the door to expansion during a speech he gave on opening day.

"I worked with President Gardiner all summer to develop a work pan and talk about how we would handle session issues,'' states the script. "Expanding Medicaid was never part of the agenda. In fact, he stated that he knew where the House was, and did not plan to push the issue in the Senate. Obviously, things have changed and rather than getting caught up in the why, or the how, we are where are today."

The script also includes the House perception that a number of GOP senators oppose expansion. (Although one can argue, they have already voted for expansion since it's in the budget and was included in a budget bill that passed the Senate by a 35-1 vote.)

It's worth noting that House Democrats contend that there are plenty of GOP House members who would vote yes on expansion.

As recounted last week _ and as shown in the script _ Crisafulli urged his members to "stand like a rock." And when it comes to expansion, the House has done that.

The House made one last-ditch effort on Friday to salvage a budget deal before the May 1 deadline. They offered to put a total of $600 million of state money into health care to help keep hospitals whole in the event that the federal government does not extend the hospital funding known as low income pool beyond this summer's deadline.

For House leaders this was an attempt to call the Senate out: Is this about the loss of hospital dollars, or is this is about Medicaid expansion? In other words, you can expect House Republicans to start saying - we are willing to take care of any perceived crisis, but the Senate doesn't want to go along.

Past legislative battles - and sessions - have almost always featured the prospect of one chamber aligning themselves with the governor - to force the other chamber to bend.

Look no further than last year when then-House Speaker Will Weatherford was willing to halt all work on the budget unless then-Senate President Don Gaetz allowed a vote on the bill that would offer in-state tuition to the children of undocumented immigrants. By that point Gov. Rick Scott also wanted the legislation, which would help him with Hispanic outreach during his upcoming re-election.

The triangulation has occurred again this year.

But one big difference is that last year's battle was waged behind the scenes and wasn't widely known initially. This blow-up has been a lot more public.

Scott and the House are aligned now on expansion after Scott reversed his reversal on expansion. (Pick your rationale here - Scott never really liked expansion anyway, he's running for U.S. Senate etc. etc.)

In theory, that should have helped resolve the standoff, although former Gov. Jeb Bush told Scott when he first came into office that you have to be careful because you can wind up "enabling" the conflict.

As first reported by The Miami Herald, Scott targeted several senators in an effort to get them to resist the plans of Gardiner and Senate leadership. Some senators - such as Sen. Thad Altman - called the meeting cordial. Other senators such as Sen. Denise Grimsley turned down the invitation to talk to Scott.

But if the idea was to peel off reluctant senators it may have had the opposite effect and helped cement - for now - the Senate.

Where does this leave Florida and the Legislature?

Let's recall that Gardiner has been in the process a long time. He was there back in 2007 when House Speaker Marco Rubio was forced by the Senate to retreat on an ambitious proposal to expand insurance coverage to children with developmental disabilities.

Rubio told his House members at the time:

"This is not a tax cut,'' he said. "This is about real children and real parents and real families who are struggling every day to make ends meet...I am saddened that we will not have legislation before us that will address your concerns."

In that same speech Rubio predicted that Gardiner would be elected to the Senate and he would "rise to leadership."

So Gardiner knows full well that it may require brinkmanship - the June 30 deadline and potential shutdown of state government - to get the House and governor to change their minds.

But as evidenced by House budget chief Richard Corcoran's angry tweets over the weekend there's little movement.

Given that dynamic, one can anticipate that the session will end on Friday - with no extension (and all non-budget related bills dying.)

The posturing will then give way to who will call the special session - Scott or legislative leaders.

A Scott called special session could result in the Senate returning and then quickly ending without any action.

The big question then is how long will the Senate hold out?

Will they go long enough to even contemplate passing just a status quo budget in late June to avoid a shutdown - but with the prospect of stretching this out to the last quarter of the year (in hopes to hear an answer from federal authorities - and allow the pressure to build as the threat of cuts to hospitals becomes more likely?)

Or is the strategy to at least hold off a final resolution until the U.S. Supreme Court deals with the challenge to the federally-run health exchange? That decision could be rendered in June. The Senate plan contemplates creating a state-run exchange that could help absorb the 1.6 million Floridians if the Supreme Court strikes down the federally-run exchange. Senators will be able to argue they have a plan to deal with this scenario.

Yes any of that could happen. And a bonus question is would any of these scenarios result in collateral damage - both in the Scott administration for pursuing a strategy that didn't render a solution, or in the legislative ranks?

In the end, "everything is awesome."

In Florida, it's "all about the base." Or is it?

State senator and former Republican Party of Florida chairman John Thrasher repeated the same mantra when Jeb Bush started his quest to become the first GOP governor to win a second term: "It's all about the base."

Translation: Motivate your core supporters in big enough numbers to negate any advantage the other person and other party may have.

That was 2002 but it might as well have been an eternity ago in Florida politics.

Back then motivating the base was a key reason for Bush's victory (especially coming just two years after the 2000 presidential election chaos showed how divided the state could be in an election.) The late Bill McBride, a first-time candidate, squeezed out a Democratic primary victory over former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno. The thinking at the time was that McBride could appeal to the middle and independents more than Reno.

But Bush - buoyed by a strong GOP turnout as well as strong support in his adopted hometown of Miami (which was also Reno's hometown) -took 56 percent of the vote. McBride's showing was so bad that Democrat Buddy Dyer, running down ballot against Charlie Crist in the attorney general's race, received nearly 98,000 more votes.

It's no secret that the demographics and dynamics of Florida and its political makeup has shifted since then as much as sand dunes do following a big storm.

So we know that the electorate is not like it was even a decade ago.

When Bush won a second term there were 9.3 million voters. Now there's 11.7 million. While the numbers of Republicans and Democrats has gone up, the number of independent voters not affiliated with any party has gone up dramatically, soaring from 1.5 million in 2002 to nearly 2.67 million by April of this year.

But in this year's governor's race we have two, or if you like, three candidates who are testing the premise that it requires a motivated base in order to ultimately win an election.

And the strategy comes during a year in which elections in Virginia and Mississippi have led to all sorts of speculation and analysis about the strength of the tea party elements in the GOP and what politicians have do to win these days.

Let's start, however, with Rick Scott and his campaign machine that includes the Republican Party of Florida.

It's been hinted at again and again - but let's repeat it anyway: Charlie Crist is the candidate that Scott world wanted from the get-go. There were people in Scott world as it's known who knew that Crist's record as a governor along with his ongoing political transformation would make him an inviting target to contrast with against Scott.

But just as importantly the hope is that animus against Crist - i.e. the turncoat, the "back stabber" who now supports the hated Obamacare - will motivate Republicans to get out in force come election time in 2014.

Because at the same time Scott and his campaign have taken a variety of policy turns in the last two years that in essence go against the wishes of the tea party folks and those in the base that helped Scott four years ago. In other words, Scott's campaign strategy is - Republicans hate Crist so they will get out in force - but at the same time we will court moderates and the middle.

Consider that since the start of 2013 Scott has done the following:

* Backed expansion for Medicaid a key component of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

* Supported and signed legislation that extend in-state tuition rates to undocumented students living in Florida despite criticism from members of his own party that it was "pandering" to certain types of voters.

* Signed a limited medical marijuana bill.

* Refused to go along with calls to outright repeal Common Core State Standards in Florida. Instead Scott has gone along with a series of steps intended to try to address some of the concerns expressed by activists and grassroots groups angered by Common Core. These included jettisoning the words Common Core from state law even though Florida standards remain based primarily on Common Core. He also signed bills that ban schools from collecting data and give parents more of a say over local textbook choices.

* Has come out in support of All Aboard Florida _ a proposed rail line linking Orlando to Miami _ despite a growing backlash in certain GOP-leaning communities. Scott has had the state support funding for projects that will ultimately help the rail line achieve its goals even if the money isn't going directly to the rail line. it seems an eternity ago when Scott had the state reject billions from the federal government for a high speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa.

If you look at this list you can see that Scott is taking a calculated risk that Common Core or immigration issues won't come back to haunt him like they have other Republican candidates. In other words, he's counting on Republicans to work hard for him despite taking positions that may antithetical to the base.

It was just a few days ago U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz get a good reception from Miami-Dade Republicans when he went after Common Core. There's a wave that has been cresting across the country that has prompted governors in Louisiana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Indiana to re-think their education policy in response to the growing chorus of opposition to Common Core which has been at its loudest among GOP activists.

Scott has reportedly told some activists that "Common Core is out" in Florida which is an artful, yet one could say misleading, way to phrase it. He's right that Common Core isn't on the books anymore. But the ghost is still in the machine and it's still guiding what the state is doing.

Scott's re-thinking of his immigration positions are also potentially perilous as well.

Polling has shown that the issue of in-state tuition resonates big with Hispanic voters who are a growing force in Florida and could help decide the race. Yet at the same time it's an issue that has hurt Florida politicians at times. (U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez's decision to forgo a 2010 re-election may have been a personal one, but there's no doubt his embrace of immigration reform had made him a likely target for a challenge from the right.)

So while you have Scott trying to pivot to the middle if he can, you have Crist and Democratic challenger Nan Rich battling over the Democratic base.

And in that instance there is an effort to damage Crist so he will be seen in a less favorable light among Democratic activists and grassroots.

Crist of course has reinvented himself and had changed his positions on such issues as same-sex marriage. Despite his "evolution" or flip-flops, however you wish to term it, he has picked up support from key Democratic-leaning organizations such as the AFL-CIO and the Florida Education Association.

But there are groups _ whose funding is shrouded in mystery _ who are trying to remind Democratic voters that Crist was once a solid Republican.

As reported by the Orlando Sentinel the group Progressive Choice _ which has also sent out mailers attacking Crist _ is now running radio ads that attack him for his efforts to bring back chain gangs to the state. Another radio ad took Crist to task for creating a "lost generation" of African-Americans.

It is not known who is bankrolling the effort and of course Crist's operatives speculate that is a front for Republicans.

Regardless of the origin it would appear the strategy could either A)Diminish enthusiasm in the Democratic base for Crist and/or B)Drive up Rich's numbers in the August primary to emphasize Crist's vulnerability. There are some who are hoping that Rich tops 40 percent so that Crist will look like damaged goods heading into the general election.

So in other words this could create a dream scenario for Scott where Republicans upset about Crist show up in force (say somewhere less than the 2010 anti-Obama wave year but still strong enough) and Democrats don't because they are lackluster in their love of Crist once he secures the nomination.

Ok. It could work.

But what if Democrats motivate their base by emphasizing this is a chance to defeat Scott. Despite Scott's attempt to recalibrate his image, he remains for lack of a better word, a villian to the left. Scott and his campaign have made an effort to soften and rebrand him (Constant reminders of his grandchildren, constant mentions that his father lost his job often, that he lived in public housing etc. etc.)

And everyone in the GOP side has taken comfort that Crist's numbers have fallen. Yes, but Crist really hasn't taken to the airwaves yet. What happens then? What if the ads - and the reminders about Scott's record - resonate? You can see it coming: Scott cut education, Scott turned down high speed rail, Scott' lacks integrity because of his time at Columbia/HCA.

Yes, I know some will say, well it didn't work back in 2010. Um, yes. But Scott wasn't a known commodity back then. He presented himself as a business guy who would turn around the economy. Yes, he has the positive that the economy is slowly recovering and the unemployment rate has dropped. (But even that narrative will be tested in the months ahead because the signs are that the rate will likely stay the same, or only dip slightly. That's the curse of an improving economy. As more people reenter the work force, it's harder to move the needle.)

The bottom line remains - what happens if the make Crist a bad guy strategy doesn't really work?

Back in 2002 despite a smaller voting base Bush received 2.85 million votes.

Eight years later Scott got 2.6 million in a big year for Republicans. Marco Rubio got more votes for U.S. Senate than Scott and he was in a three-way race with both Crist and U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek.

This time around there's no Rubio on the ballot to help drive Republicans to the polls. There's just Scott.

And we will see whether it's still "all about the base."

Guess who's missing in the big Congressional showdown in Florida?

Today's election between Republican David Jolly and Democrat Alex Sink over who will replace the late Bill Young in Florida's 13th Congressional District has gotten a whole lot of attention from across the country.

The main characterization is that it will it "test voter moods" and will show whether or not voters will take out their dissatisfaction with the health care overhaul against Democrats.

But just as telling is how Republicans (and yes I know there is a divide between the national and local folks running the Jolly campaign) have made one crucial calculation in the run-up to today.

Keep Rick Scott as far away as possible from the election.

Think about that for a second. Scott is arguably the leading Republican in the state of Florida. He has his people in charge of the Republican Party of Florida.

Furthermore, he was the one who defeated Sink in the 2010 goveror's race. You would think the last thing that he would want is the resuscitation of her political brand.

Yet it's abundantly clear that the Jolly camp and his supporters are keeping their distance.

Those who have lent their help to push Jolly include Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and on the eve of election, Rand Paul.

But no Scott.

What makes it even more interesting is that Jolly has taken a page out of the Scott 2010 playbook: Using Sink's status as a Democrat to tie to her President Barack Obama and to his health care overhaul. Let's not forget that Sink blamed Obama for her narrow defeat to Scott.

Scott has even resurrected his staunch opposition to the health care overhaul as a key part of his own talking points in recent weeks. But Scott's main help to Jolly was in the form of a Tallahassee fundraiser.

The Miami Herald reported earlier this week that a series of internal poll numbers had made Republicans uneasy at Scott's prospects in the fall.

There can be no surer proof in these numbers than Scott's continued absence from helping Jolly.

And if Sink wins it will spark some interesting questions about what the Scott campaign will do moving forward as they deal with a much more accomplished and better campaigner than Alex Sink in the 2014 governor's race.

 

 

Charlie past $1 million mark, while big boost from NE Fla pushes Scott over $25 mil

Gov. Rick Scott's sizable fundraising haul since Charlie Crist entered the governor's race continues to mount.

Scott's fundraising committee Let's Get to Work has updated its numbers again this week and the total for the month of November now stands at nearly $5.84 million. That pushes the total raised by the committee since the summer of 2011 to $25.1 million. This is the magic mark for Scott who predicted he would spend that much money to define his opponent in early 2014.

The latest push came courtesy of contributions given last week from many of the big political names and companies tied to Jacksonville and Northeast Florida. (Or what could also be known as Adam Hollingsworth territory, Scott's chief of staff who is a former CSX executive and worked as chief of staff to then-Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton.)

Florida Blue, one of the state's largest health insurers, and several of its affiliates kicked in $187,500 last week, while well-known Jacksonville businessman Tom Petway donated $50,000. Steve Halverson, CEO of The Haskell Company gave $15,000, former Jacksonville mayor John Delaney contributed $750 and the firm of Wiles Boselli contributed $2,500. Susie Wiles was Scott's campaign manager in 2010.

Democrat Crist also posted new numbers this week. His political committee - Charlie Crist for Florida - has moved past the $1 million mark since entering the race at the start of the month. His new total stands at $1.28 million.

Crist has 45 contributors so far, including the Institute of Cardiovascular Excellence of Ocala, which gave the former governor a $100,000 check on Saturday. Crist also received a $15,000 check from Daryl Parks, who is the law partner of Benjamin Crump. Crump has been representing the parents of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed teenager who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman. Zimmerman, who claimed self-defense, was acquitted of second-degree murder charges filed against him.

Another donor to Crist is Democratic mega-donor Barbara Stiefel, who gave $100,000. According to the Tampa Bay Times she is a retiree from Coral Gables who gave large sums last year to "super PACs" that were backing President Barack Obama.

5 biggest questions of the 2013 session answered

So closing the loop from two months ago, here's the 5 biggest questions of the 2013 session answered (and with some thoughts about what happens next):

1. Will lawmakers agree to expand Medicaid? The answer wasn't just no. For the Florida House Republicans it was hell no (and even when the proposal moved beyond Medicaid to the idea of using federal aid to purchase private health insurance)

The decision to reject expansion probably doesn't hurt GOP lawmakers right now. (Of course that could change when all the ramifications of the rejection begin to hit home to businesses and individuals next year.)

But it could be seen as a defeat for Gov. Rick Scott in more ways that one.

He already got hammered by conservatives for his decision to go along with Medicaid expansion after being one of the most ardent opponents to "Obamacare." But with no resolution Scott continues to get hit from Democrats who say this just shows he has no leadership skills. They contend he failed to use his clout to get it passed.

The governor made sure to say that Medicaid expansion was not one of his top priorities, but in the end he remains the one who probably loses the most from both sides of the political spectrum. Not sure how this helps someone whose poll numbers remain below 50 percent.

Democrats have started going on about a special session, but so far Scott has been skeptical about such an approach. Last Friday he said that state lawmakers had made their decision and the "answer is no." Just not sure how that plays - with anyone regardless of their political persuasion.

2. Will Scott get his pay raise for teachers? Kind of.

Yes, lawmakers did put $480 million in the budget, but at first they said it couldn't take effect until June 2014 (or in other words after another session had passed.) Then top legislative leaders said that the June 2014 was Scott's idea (although an email exchange from one of Scott's top aides showed that wasn't the case.)

Lawmakers also tied the pay raise to performance standards instead of an across-the-board $2,500 pay raise. While school districts have the final say over the raise, it remains to be seen how it will be distributed.

Scott has already gone out this week on a five-stop "victory" tour to tout the pay raise.

It's worth remembering that when Scott first pushed the pay raise he wanted it with no strings attached as a reward to the good work that teachers have done so far. "We don't want a war on teachers, we want a war on failure," was the line that Scott gave at the onset of the session.

But Senate President Don Gaetz and Weatherford had their own ideas - and they kept bargaining over the fine print of how the raises would be handed out until the very end of session. They gave Scott enough for him to use for his re-election campaign, but they stopped short of giving the governor exactly what he asked for.

3.Is Jeb Bush still in charge? No. But that doesn't mean he still doesn't have influence. And it may have showed up in key places.

Let's not forget that a few weeks before session that Bush privately told House Republicans that they should reject Medicaid expansion. But Bush added an important element: Make sure to offer up an alternative deal instead of just saying no.

And while many complained that it didn't go far enough House Republicans did in fact unveil their own plan to use state dollars to provide health insurance to roughly 115,000 uninsured Floridians.

Toward the end of the session Weatherford channeled Bush when said: "In politics these days a lot of people say ‘No’ and walk away. We didn’t say no. We offered up an alternative.”

But in other places Bush's influence was not as significant. An example is the defeat again this year of the controversial "parent trigger" bill in the Florida Senate despite Bush's fervent support.

And it was Florida's other famous Republican _ U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio _ who also may have had just as much influence as his one-time mentor. The Tampa Bay Times/Miami Herald, for example, reported that Rubio played a role in the last-minute decision by legislators to push back the date of Florida's presidential primary. This was a big deal since it was Rubio who pushed for the change to begin with.

4. A kinder, less partisan Legislature? Nope.

There had been signs right before the start that the Legislature might chart a less confrontational path than in previous years. But the impasse over Medicaid expansion and disagreement over election law changes resulted in a whole lot of acrimony in the waning moments of the session.

Republicans complained that the opposition by Senate Democrats to the election bill (after it was first appeared to be a bipartisan effort) was all about politics.

House Democrats meanwhile used a procedural move to slow down the pace of the session in the final few days that left both sides fuming and scowling. And it turns out that one of the casualties may in fact be Scott's proposal to eliminate sales taxes for manufacturers who purchase the equipment. The tax cut was pushed through by Republicans who refused to answer questions or even debate the measure when it came on the evening of May 1. The result was a vote much closer than anticipated and one that turned to be under the two-thirds requirement for bills that affect local tax revenues.

Weatherford and House staff contend the tax cut bill is not in danger of falling due to a legal challenge. They offered several theories that hinge on your definition of words like "aggregate" and "insignificant."

Weatherford for his part questioned who want to sue over a tax cut. Fair enough. But it's worth wondering whether or not the vote would have been that close if House Republicans weren't scrambling to push through the tax cut bill. (The reason for the rush, of course, was that there were fears that Scott would veto bills being sought by Weatherford and Gaetz if he didn't get his tax cut proposal. Scott signed the bills within an hour of the House vote.)

5. Is this really the year for serious ethics reform? Actually, the answer to this is yes.

While the final ethics bill isn't as far-reaching as some have advocated this is a still an accomplishment given that grand juries and former governors have tried to get the Legislature to crack down on public officials in the last decade.

The final bill for the first time a mechanism that allows the Florida Commission on Ethics to initiate an investigation based upon a referral from the governor or law-enforcement agencies. (It also makes it harder for people to file complaints right before an election based on newspaper stories.)

It puts additional restrictions on lobbying and dual employment by legislators, requires posting of financial disclosure forms on the Internet, and allow the state to go after public officials who have refused to pay fines.

There are some question marks about a couple of the final provisions. But several advocacy groups have noted that the final bill is more than has been done in the area in quite some time.

5 biggest questions of the 2013 session

Florida's GOP-controlled Legislature kicks off its annual session on Tuesday amid the backdrop of Gov. Rick Scott's aggressive move to the center as he continues to battle stagnant poll numbers. Both House Speaker Will Weatherford and Senate President Don Gaetz have their own agendas but the big focus for the next 60 days is whether or not lawmakers will help the incumbent Republican governor or damage him further as he gets prepared for what could be a very tough re-election campaign.

Here then are the 5 biggest questions of the 2013 session:

1. Will lawmakers agree to expand Medicaid? This is a decision that could have repercussions for years to come.

Scott's decision to endorse the expansion of the safety-net health care insurance program for three years to take advantage of billions in federal aid was widely criticized by conservatives and even top fellow Republicans.

The governor has said this is not one of his top priorities, but his decision to endorse the expansion right before the session means that if the Medicaid expansion is rejected it will be seen as a loss for Scott.

The House has already come out forcefully against the expansion and Weatherford is expected during his opening day remarks to articulate the rationale behind that stance. The Senate has taken no official position yet although comments in recent weeks suggested that Senate Republicans have been contemplating expansion seriously.

There are some suggestions that the House may use Medicaid expansion as a bargaining chip for other issues which if true carries its own share of risks, including bringing down the wrath of conservatives and tea party groups on to House Republicans if they change their mind over the next nine weeks. But if the House and Senate goes different routes it sets the stage for an impasse over the entire budget...which means the session may not end on time.

What could emerge is a hybrid solution: Some limited expansion of Medicaid that comes without the full funding of the federal government, but offers an answer to critics who contend the state is turning its back on roughly 1 million uninsured residents. There is also a lot of interest in the deal offered to the state of Arkansas which has been allowed by the feds to purchase private health insurance for those below 133 percent of the federal poverty line instead of placing those people into Medicaid.

2. Will Scott get his pay raise for teachers? The debate over Medicaid expansion has overshadowed what could have been the biggest storyline of the session: Will Republican legislative leaders go along with Scott's budget proposals, including his pitch for a $2,500 across the board pay raise for teachers in the state.

Scott has made it clear that the teacher pay raise - and his push to eliminate sales taxes on equipment purchased for manufacturing - are his top two priorities this year.

In his State of the State speech Scott will tell lawmakers: "Some say they are afraid that giving raises to all teachers may mean that a teacher doing a bad job gets rewarded. But, thanks to our work, we are now in a better position than ever before to reward good teachers and move bad teachers out of the classroom....We don’t want a war on teachers; we want a war on failure"

But both Weatherford and Gaetz have so far given only lukewarm endorsements of the proposal. Instead the two legislative leaders have questioned if the raises would undermine the new merit pay system that is supposed to take effect next year.

Again, we have a potentially awkward situation where the Legislature has the power to either help Scott as he moves forward - or damage him.

3.Is Jeb Bush still in charge? Former Gov. Bush visited Tallahassee a few weeks ago and he met with legislative leaders as well as an enthusiastic group of House Republicans. At the tail end of a closed door session with the House members he was asked about the contentious Medicaid expansion issue. Bush told them that they should reject the expansion, but that they should offer up an alternative deal. So far the House has followed through on part one of that advice.

But that's far from where the Bush influence ends. Bush - who battled mightily against the state's teacher union while he pushed education changes  - refused during that brief stop to publicly take a position on Scott's pay raise proposal. No one should believe he doesn't have an opinion. Instead it should be viewed that Bush adheres to the protocol of avoiding any public policy disagreements with a sitting Republican governor.

There is also expected this year to be a repeat of last year's heavily-debated "parent trigger" bill. Bush steadfastly supports the legislation, which is expected to have a smoother trip this session. So if Medicaid expansion and teacher pay raises go down and parent trigger is passed then Bush will have a better session than the current occupant of the plaza offices in the Capitol.

4. A kinder, less partisan Legislature? In the run-up to the start of the session (and before Monday's Medicaid expansion stance that drew the wrath of Democrats), there had been signs that the Legislature may chart a less confrontational path than in previous years.

Case in point is the proposal to revamp the state's election system. It was the supercharged 2011 Legislature that passed the controversial election law that cut short early voting days. Republicans - who enjoyed a super-majority at the time - pushed the bill through despite strong warnings from Democrats it would backfire on them.

This year we have Republicans attempting so far to work with Democrats on rolling back some of the provisions of the 2011 law and making other changes in order to avoid a repeat of last fall's election where people wound up waiting hours in line in order to vote. Democrats are not in complete agreement, but this is still a marked change from just two years earlier.

It could be that the 2012 elections - where President Barack Obama won Florida a second time and Republicans lost seats in the Legislature - might have been a wake up call that the GOP needs to moderate its message and image.

So far we have not seen a wave of legislation that is intended to fire up the Republican base heading into 2014. The normal pattern is that the off-year session is the year that lawmakers are more likely to adopt controversial items. This could be the year that breaks that trend.

5. Is this really the year for serious ethics reform? Both Weatherford and Gaetz have vowed that this is the year that legislators will enact far-reaching changes to the state's ethics laws. The Florida Senate is expected to take up - and probably pass  - the ethics bill on the first day of session.

The reason this is a big deal is that grand juries and former governors have tried to get the Legislature to crack down on public officials in the last decade but those efforts went nowhere.

The Senate bill creates for the first time a mechanism that allows the Florida Commission on Ethics to initiate an investigation based upon a referral from the governor or law-enforcement agencies. (It also makes it harder for people to file complaints right before an election based on newspaper stories.)

Weatherford for his part supports ethics reform, but he also said time and time again that ethics reform can't be done without "campaign finance" reform. Translation: We take your bill if you take our bill.

It's likely that some kind of deal will get reached and legislation dealing with both will pass. But the key is what gets dumped, altered and changed by the time legislators reach the finishing line.

Will it be the far-reaching changes that legislative leaders have vowed? Or will it be incremental changes that maintain some of the current loopholes in the system?

The governor, Obamacare and an arcane bureaucratic process most taxpayers have never heard about

Give Gov. Rick Scott credit for one thing.

He is helping bring attention to an arcane part of the state budgeting process that most people are probably unaware of.

Scott created a firestorm because he decided to stick with and publicize a forecast that contends that implementing "Obamacare" - which includes expanding the state Medicaid program - would cost state taxpayers nearly $26 billion. It was Scott's own health care agency that drew up these numbers back in December in anticipation of presenting the information to state economists.

But Scott's own budget office was quickly informed that the numbers by the Agency for Health Care Administration needed to be reworked to comply with the normal forecast process. For example: One big reason for the higher price-tag is that AHCA assumed that the federal government would change the law and cut back on money pledged to the states.

Yet despite that Scott used the figure of $26 billion when he met this week with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to talk about health care. Emails showing that Scott's office had been warned surfaced thanks to reporting by Health News Florida, sparking criticism, especially from Democrats who accused Scott of cooking the books in order to justify his continued opposition to the federal health care overhaul.

Then on Wednesday night AHCA released new numbers that showed that the forecast now ranged from as low as $3 billion to $9 billion if drawn up in accordance the normal fashion. The new estimates came out shortly after House budget chief Rep. Seth McKeel put out a statement that said it was important that the state follow its normal process "which requires estimates based on current law and practice. This is critical to the integrity of our budgeting process."

Now to be fair this isn't the first time that forecasts drawn up by state government have created a controversy.

Back in 2002 there was sharp criticism when economists said that the class size amendment pushed by then State Sen. Kendrick Meek would cost as much as $30 billion during the initial implementation phase. Then-Gov. Jeb Bush used this estimate to pound Bill McBride in their race for governor. McBride supported the amendment while Bush said it would lead to dramatic tax hikes. (The final tally between the 2003-04 fiscal year to the 2010-11 fiscal year was $18.7 billion and the cost is now up to $24.6 billion after a decade.)

It's also rather routine for state economists to question forecasts that come from state agencies including AHCA.

Here's how it works: Most of the attention that comes with the state budget occurs in the spring when the governor proposes a budget and then the Legislature uses that as a framework to build its own budget.

But by law the governor and the Legislature rely on a series of "estimating conferences" where professional staff from the House, Senate, governor's office and the Office of Economic and Demographic Research come together and go over data to reach estimates that are then used to build the budget. The idea is to reach a "consensus" that give an accurate picture of how much tax dollars will be collected, how many school children will show up each year and how much money will be needed to cover expenses in such programs as Medicaid, the safety net program for the poor. Any one of the "principals" involved can veto the estimate.

This practice started in 1970 with forecasts for general revenue (the tax dollars that make up the main funding source for state government.) The process was formalized in state law in 1985 and the number of estimating conferences has expanded since then. If you want more, here's a handy dandy explanation.

The important thing here is this: The Legislature is not bound to use these forecasts when it adopts a final budget. But it generally does. And more importantly state agencies - and the governor - are supposed to use them as well.

Last summer an estimating conference was held that put the cost of the state implementing optional and mandatory portions of "Obamacare" officially at $1.74 billion but with a "maximum exposure" of roughly $8 billion. This number was drawn up after reviewing AHCA numbers and massaging them. The higher figure assumed, for example, that the state would pay health care providers and doctors a higher reimbursement rate for the next 10 years even though current rules require the higher payment for just two years.

Then as the year went on the plan was to hold a new meeting to update the numbers in advance of Scott releasing his budget and the Legislature going into session.

AHCA in December came out with the new $26 billion figure, but that new estimate assumed that the federal government would reimburse the state for Medicaid expansion at the average rate it has been reimbursing the state for years. That led to the director of the House Health Care Appropriations subcommittee to request that AHCA redo the numbers because he pointed out the estimates relied on a reimbursement formula that was "contrary to federal law" and deviated from the normal practice.

Scott's new policy coordinator for health care asked that the new AHCA numbers be presented at the next estimating conference anyway as an alternative forecast (which is allowed under the process.)

Mike Anway wrote that "It is our responsibility as principles (sic) to take seriously the actions of this administration, and question if the state of Florida can rely upon the promises of an increased (federal reimbursement) for an expanded Medicaid program." Anway pointed out that the Obama administration had already proposed scaling back the reimbursement rate and that the federal government has a "$16 trillion national debt, must borrow 46 cents of every dollar it spends, and in 2011 had its credit rating downgraded."

It's important - again - to note that this $26 billion figure can't be adopted as an official estimate without unanimous consent from everyone participating in the conference.

That means - for now - Scott is bound to last August's estimate unless a new one is drawn up between now and when he unveils his budget. (Of course based on everything he has said it seems it would be unlikely that Scott would recommend expanding Medicaid as envisioned under "Obamacare." And he will likely use the higher number to justify his decision.)

But that doesn't mean that the Legislature - which is getting lobbied by hospitals to go along with the expansion - won't buck the governor on this.

What's also interesting is that state economists were supposed to hold the conference to draw up the new "Obamacare" numbers last month. That meeting, however, was postponed and still hasn't been rescheduled. That gave time for AHCA to draw up the revised numbers that it released late Wednesday.

So now we have all sorts of drama to spice up the mundane estimating conferences thanks to the governor. And it's just a guess but it's safe to assume that next one on the Affordable Care Act will probably draw a much larger crowd than normal.