The Fine Print

'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."

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 roots behind the Rick Scott-Adam Putnam showdown

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, especially those in "Scott world" that Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam came out so forcefully against Gov. Rick Scott's decision to back the expansion of Medicaid. Putnam called it "naive" and blasted the decision during a speech he gave in Tallahassee.

There are those who already jumping to the conclusion that Putnam is readying himself to a primary challenge against his fellow Republican.

That still appears to be unlikely.

But there has been a feud quietly building up in the last two years.

There are signs - and speculation among those close to Putnam - that he has been viewed as a possible threat ever since the two men came into office in early 2011.

Whatever the reason there is no question that Putnam and his staff have been put on the defensive in back-to-back legislative sessions because each year the governor's office has hinted at the possibility of a veto of Putnam's top legislative priority.

In the first year the Scott administration discussed internally whether to veto a bill that shifted control of the school lunch program away from the Department of Education and over to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

The main resistance to the legislation came from the State Board of Education (and which had been contemplating banning chocolate milk in schools), but Putnam was able to shepherd the measure through the Legislature and on to Scott's desk without much resistance. Putnam had managed to build up a coalition of support for the legislation and in the end Scott approved the bill.

But that wasn't the end of the tug-of-war between the Scott administration and Putnam's office.

The same year Putnam won control of the school lunch program the Legislature also gave Putnam a larger say over energy issues.

He followed it up in 2012 by pushing what he termed a modest energy bill that restored tax credits for renewable energy projects. That bill, however, ran into fervent opposition, especially from tea party groups and Americans for Prosperity-Florida, which contended the measure created winners and losers.

Scott let the bill become law - but without his signature.

In a letter announcing his decision Scott wrote that he let it become law out of "deference" to Putnam and the legislators pushing it. But he also questioned whether the bill would produce results. "Absent clear documentation that the proposed tax credits have produced a sufficient return or provided significant cost savings for the state's taxpayers, I will request their repeal," Scott wrote.

Putnam referenced the near veto recently - and explained it was why he decided to opt against recommending any major legislation this year.

"We found widespread support in the Legislature and we very nearly had it vetoed," Putnam told Bruce Ritchie of The Florida Current. "So moving forward, we think it's important there is a clear understanding what all of the interested parties' expectations are for future energy development in Florida."

Another warning shot from Scott to Putnam came right after the governor signed his first budget into law. In his veto message Scott openly questioned the "value" of two divisions under Putnam including the Division of Consumer Services. He wrote that Putnam's office had not done a good enough job to justify the money spent on the two divisions and suggested he might eliminate it in the future.

The tension between Scott and Putnam has also been on display during meetings between the governor and the Cabinet. If you watch closely there have been numerous times that Putnam has gingerly waded into some issue, only to cut himself off and not press the item any further. It almost seems as if he wants to say something, but then decides it's not worth the fight.

This coming week will mark the first time that Scott and the three members of the Cabinet - Putnam, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater - have met publicly since the Medicaid expansion debate began.

Bondi and Atwater have also criticized the decision by Scott to support Medicaid expansion.

Bondi and Scott have for the most part forged a close-working relationship prior to this moment so it's not clear whether this will prove detrimental. Atwater and Scott have had some mild disagreements - particularly in the arena of insurance regulation and Citizens Property Insurance - but the two did work together on pushing changes to the personal injury protection law (PIP).

The biggest question moving ahead is whether Putnam, Bondi or Atwater take time to keep up their opposition to Medicaid expansion and actively lobby against it in the Legislature.

All three members have side-stepped many controversial issues since coming into office in 2011 - refusing to take a stance on numerous items.

Case in point - Putnam was slow wading into the debate over Internet cafes even though the storefront operations have been able to expand by contending they fall under sweepstakes operations (which are regulated by Putnam's office.) It wasn't until after his first session as commissioner that Putnam suggested lawmakers needed to decide if Internet cafes were legal.

But with 2014 right around the corner it will be interesting to see whether or not Putnam - as well as Bondi and Atwater - decide to ratchet up their profiles and battles with the governor.

How can Rick Scott regain momentum in 2013?

Amid the last round of lackluster poll numbers for Gov. Rick Scott political consultant Tony Fabrizio in mid-December wrote a one-page memo where he argued that it was way too early for people to write off Scott's chances for a second term.

Fabrizio used an interesting analogy: If President Barack Obama could win Florida a second time so could Scott. Download 12-19-12 Memo on Q Poll

 "Anyone who dismisses Governor Scott and his chances does so at their own peril. Governor Scott has nearly a year longer to reverse negative numbers similar to what the President had, therefore it seems irresponsible and hasty to count the governor out from making an equal, if not stronger, turn around."

Democrats this past weekend loudly announced that Scott's defeat will be their primary focus in the next cycle. The challenge of the Democrats, however, will be the ability of the party to have the resources to compete with what could be a very expensive race. And make no mistake: There are some in "Scott world" who are not troubled by former Gov. Charlie Crist as the nominee. That's because this will allow the campaign team to draw a clear contrast, especially when it comes to comparing how the state's economy fared under Crist and how it has fared under Scott.

It could also be argued that some of Scott's recent policy initiatives on tuition, voting and now teacher pay raises are aimed squarely at muting Crist on those same issues. Crist for example in 2009 signed the bill that gave universities in Florida the ability to raise tuition up to 15 percent a year until Florida's tuition rates reach the national average. Contrast that to Scott's firm insistence that tuition be held flat.

But the central question remains: What can Scott do on his own to turn things around in the coming year and heading into 2014?

The plain fact is that governors - unlike the president - have a much more limited fashion in which to engage with the public and convince them they are doing a good job.

One way is completely out of Scott's control: Show leadership through a crisis such as a natural disaster. Part of the enduring legacy - for example - of former Gov. Jeb Bush is the way he dealt with the wave of hurricanes that hit the state.

The difficulty for Scott rebuilding his brand and image in the second half of his term is that in many ways he's already been like three different governors.

Thanks to three different chiefs of staff he has approached governing, his agenda and his interaction with the press in distinct ways.

The first phase of Scott's governorship - where he was surrounded by people who helped his campaign including defacto chief of staff Mary Anne Carter - the governor staked out positions that excited the base of GOP voters who propelled him in the Republican primary and helped him get a narrow win over Democrat Alex Sink. He unveiled a budget that cut funding for education, he rejected billions in federal aid for high speed rail, he clashed with the Florida Legislature and his staff had a bunker mentality with the press.

The second phase under Steve MacNamara included a decision to have Scott engage in a two-way strategy with the press: Open up more to the mainstream media while also appearing on conservative talk radio shows to keep the base engaged. Also put in place was a more calculated strategy of trying to work with the Legislature. Take on the winnable battles like auto insurance reforms, avoid direct engagement (like in casino gambling) on issues that have an uncertain chance of success. Scott jettisoned parts of his campaign agenda such as pushing tough new laws on immigration. He became more accommodating to legislative initiatives and even embraced some of them such as the creation of Florida Polytechnic University. And Scott tried to undo the damage caused in the first phase by pushing for a funding increase in education.

Now with current chief of staff Adam Hollingsworth we have the third phase. Yet another strategy with the press. There are attempts to appear less rigid and more open to dialogue with opponents (hence the "discussions" over Obamacare with Washington D.C. or the dinner with top officials with the Florida Education Association.) And there's even a full 180-turn on hot topics such as voting where Scott - who signed the law that cut early voting days and defended it court - is now advocating an expansion of early voting beyond what was previously in place.

Moving ahead then here's the avenues left for Scott to try to change his trajectory with voters (outside the hope that the economy will continue to grow and that Scott will get the credit.)

SCOTT'S LEGISLATIVE AGENDA: Like it or not Scott's third year in office will in many ways revolve around what he accomplishes this spring. He will be judged by how much of his agenda is accepted or rejected by the GOP-controlled Legislature. Scott this week will present a budget that in many ways will attempt to highlight his new priorities, such as a flat across the board pay raise for teachers, a freeze on university tuition hikes and a cut in sales taxes for the purchase of equipment used in manufacturing. (More on this later this week)

But it should not be assumed that top lawmakers will bend to Scott's wishes as evidenced by the initial lackluster enthusiasm given Scott's teacher pay raise proposal. And we still don't have a clear idea on what will happen to the implementation of Obamacare, especially on expansion of Medicaid that is now an optional part of the federal health care overhaul. If Scott rejects expansion - which appears likely given his recent statements - will lawmakers buck him and dare the governor to veto it?

Scott's trump card, of course, is that he has the ability to shoot down any legislative proposals that he dislikes and he can use that as leverage to get what he needs.

Given Scott's recent populist turn on voting and teacher pay raises it will be interesting to see if he uses the veto pen as a way to distinguish himself from the Legislature. For example what does the governor do if a bill raising insurance rates for the 1.3 million customers of Citizens Property Insurance were to cross his desk on the eve of this year's hurricane season?

KEEP UP OPPOSITION TO THE PRESIDENT: In some ways Scott was actually better served by having President Barack Obama getting re-elected than having Republican Mitt Romney win. The down side to Obama's re-election is that the president and his allies have the capacity to assist the campaign of someone like newly-minted Democrat Crist. But Obama in the White House gives Scott - and the Republicans in general - something to rail about heading into 2014. You can see the narrative: "I stood up to the president on government controlled health care, we improved the economy without his help, we will not go along with his agenda on guns." You get the picture. And if Obama's numbers go underwater again then Scott gets to link Crist to the president.

SCOTT'S MEDIA STRATEGY: Largely unnoticed by the general public Scott's media strategy has in fact been altered with the entrance of new communications director Melissa Sellers. That's not to say that everything has been smooth sailing (witness the brouhaha over the return of Scott's dog Reagan.) But the press office's new strategy does appear to be one of cooperation (when it benefits the Scott agenda) and less direct confrontation. This means giving some in the press access in the hopes it will create a story that bolsters the governor.

This doesn't mean, however, that the press office is passive. Far from it.

The governor's office appears to be engaged in trying to get Scott's message out (which is amplified by the Republican Party of Florida, whose media operation is lead by former communications director Brian Burgess). It is then left to some of the agencies to push back against stories that the Scott administration does not agree with. Several agencies, for example, in recent months have put out press releases sent to all media outlets that attempt to debunk stories and even editorials that have appeared. (The changes at the Department of Environmental Protection being a key example.)

Meanwhile, the governor's press office is tracking media coverage even more closer than ever before. Emails show that the governor's entire staff is now getting "news alerts" that include snippets of stories and even tweets by capitol press corps reporters just moments after they hit the web and Twitter.

So will it all add up?

It's hard to say.

Part of the difficulty for those working for Scott is some of the missteps in the first two years have been self-inflicted. Democrats may not like some of Scott's policy initiatives but some of them have polled well with the general public i.e. drug testing for welfare recipients.

Those who have dealings with Scott will tell you up front that he studies details and takes times to understand complex policy issues.

But in many ways he has had to "grow up" in public and has drawn attention in ways he probably didn't intend (such as the incident with the King of Spain). In other instances, his staff did not appear to anticipate the political fallout over a decision (i.e. the cutting of the education budget, the signing of the Cuba-crackdown bill.)

The balancing act in the months ahead is whether Scott can find success with the Legislature and the economy and finally reverse his flat-lining poll numbers. Because even during a campaign there's only so much love money can buy.

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.