April 7, 2025 • 24 mins
Sal Nuzzo, of Consumers Defense, unpacks and does a little bit of a deep dive on a couple of the issues inside Florida's legislative session.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
It's the third hour of the morning Show with President Scott.
The band is back together. I'm Preston. He is Grand
Allen in Studio one A running the program today. He's
our he's our designated producer today the DP as opposed
to the DH, which we hope to have him back
(00:25):
doing sometime soon. And joining me in studio is Salnuzzo
of Consumer's Defense. And it's our legislative update. And we
are through five weeks now of the session.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Yeah, we have passed the halfway point, and I'd like
to say it's all downhill from here, but I have
no clue at this point.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
If I were to ask you from a productivity standpoint,
great at A through F, where are we at?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
It's a great question, I'd probably say a C plus.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Maybe did we get spoiled from the previous few years?
And I mean historically speaking, were we spoiled or were
the last few years what they should have been?
Speaker 2 (01:05):
I would suggest that the last two years under Speaker
Paul Renner we were incredibly spoiled. Okay, and we were
incredibly spoiled because we had a governor and a legislature
that were lockstep. They were aligned, and they were these
are the priorities, This is the agenda, this is the
direction that we want to move the state. We are
going to do it, and they did it, and we
(01:26):
have returned more toward the norm. Yeah, I don't know
that I want to call it the norm because we're
all in the same party and some of the dialogue
and so well, in some of the debate and dialogue,
I would push back a little bit because we are
(01:46):
in many respects, but the dialogue has become a little
bit more public than I would that I'm comfortable with.
But yes, and we'll get to this when we talked proposals,
I think. But yes, we are all in the same party. Yes,
we are having what would traditionally be a very healthy
debate about agenda and pathways forward. And yes, some stuff
(02:10):
falls off, some stuff gets put on. But yeah, I
would go a C.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Plus we are dealing with the legislative session, but you
still have to kind of start with the executive and
the governor.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Yeah, and the really in the last week, he's become
a lot more vocal in what I you know, some
may call he's gone on offense. I would say he's
kind of tactically playing a little bit more defense because
he's having to respond to what the House, in particular
the House is doing, and so he challenged him. There
(02:46):
was a press event or something where he challenged a
number of bills that were moving, specifically called out the
effort to reverse many of the tort reforms that passed
back in twenty twenty three. He also highlighted a bill
that is kind of in my purview professionally and is
really concerning to me, and that's to set up a
Task Force on Carbon s Questration, which is like this
(03:08):
kind of pseudo technology to try and quote unquote capture
carbon emissions, oh lord, before they damage the climate. And
it's really kind of what I would suggest is something
like that is playing policy on the field that the
left dictates the rules. And so those are the things
(03:29):
where he's kind of pointed out, and he actually had
a pretty pointed quote. He said, what I've seen so
far out of the Florida House or representatives, they're not
trying to step on the left's throat. They're giving a
lifeline to the Democratic Party. They're giving a lifeline to
the left. Now, that's that's pretty forceful language. It's not
something we would traditionally see even when you're having differences
(03:50):
on policy between the chambers and the governor's office and so.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
But in this particular case, on that particular issue, he's
on the money.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
On that particular is such we spot on one hundred
percent that bill is a trojan horse and it's not
something that I would ever have envisioned a very conservative
legislature moving through. And it's it's gotten hearings in both chambers,
and so that's where you know, if it's moving in
one chamber and not another, and we expect it's just
(04:21):
going to die, you know, it's one thing. But that's
definitely the case with that one.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
I think most people know, unless they're new to the
state of Florida, there is one mandate they have, and
that is to have a balanced budget. They've got to
do that. The rest is gravy. So where are they
in the budget process?
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Yeah, so one constitutional requirement passed not just a budget,
but a balance budget. The House incentive both moved their
proposals through the Appropriations Committee, and that's the kind of
the first step and getting to what we call the
conferencing process, which is where they come together and negotiate
out all of the details.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Let me ask you a question. They're four billion dollars
apart right now? Is put some historical kind text to that?
Is that about right? Is that normal? Is that different?
Speaker 2 (05:04):
It's a little bit more. And I had to look
back over the years. It's it's a little bit more
than we've seen traditionally between them. Sometimes it's it's two billions,
Sometimes it can it's gotten as high as three. I
don't know that I've ever seen a four billion dollar gap,
but I did take a look at where they're kind
of what they're looking at and why there is such
(05:25):
a difference. And so a couple of things. First off,
you've got the House at one hundred and thirteen billion
and the Senate at one hundred and seventeen and some change.
So one of the differences is the Senate proposal would
do away with about one thousand full time positions in
state government that have been vacant, and I think they've
been vacant for ninety days. And so the House side
(05:48):
is eliminating seven thousand positions that have been vacant, but
they've been vacant for I think one hundred days or more.
So you've got a piece of that. The Senate's proposed
a four percent pay increase for state employees. The House
doesn't have anything on that side. But the big deal
in this and where I know we're going to talk
about the tax proposals, is the House has the sales
(06:11):
tax base reduction, the rate reduction from six percent to
five point twenty five percent in their budget bill, and
the Senate does not yet have anything in there, And
so that's creating this kind of big gulf between the two.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
If any discussion circled around the Department of Corrections, because
of all the agencies, there's an agency there that is
it's staffing is dependent on populations that they have zero
control over. And I know that Corrections has seven eight
thousand more inmates in its system, but they don't have
more positions and their concerns there. It's a real good question.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
The answer is right now, I don't know, but it's
absolutely something that will be subsequent to this week very
easy to kind of dive in on it and get
a sense of kind of unpacking where is the House
on Public Safety and corrections? Where is the Senate and
where are the specific gaps there? And we can definitely
do that in a future maybe next Monday.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Okay, So as we're looking at the tax proposals, now, sure,
what are you seeing?
Speaker 2 (07:17):
So last week the House Ways and Means Committee did
pass the House tax plan, and that includes the Speaker's
proposal for a permanent reduction, as I mentioned, from six
to five point two five percent. It does not include
anything on the local options. So like here in Leon County,
I think we have three of them, which takes our
(07:39):
rate from six.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
It's a the max.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Yeah, it's at the max.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
And the reason for that is they can those are
local options, so they would have to go to a
constitutional amendment to ban those, and they're not going to
do that. In addition, sales tax holidays are currently not
in the tax bill, so in the Speaker's proposal, which
is now a bill moving, they're shifting from from what
(08:03):
we've traditionally done, which is allocating a month forced back
to school, sales tax and all of these other things,
and they're just reducing the rate, which on the whole
I'm in favor of. So now I haven't looked at
the math on how much is saved in those holidays
versus what they're proposing and all of that, but that
(08:24):
does I like that part. However, it's a big contrast
to what the governor's proposing.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
I know that merchants hate the sales tax holidays, yep,
because it causes a disruption to the normal flow of
buying and selling. Absolutely, and when you compare that to
what the governor's proposing, it is a stark difference. It
is a stark difference. And the governor wants to eliminate
property taxes altogether.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Right. He also acknowledges that it would to get there,
it would require a ballot amendment. It have to be
a constitutional deal, which would be on the twenty twenty
six ballot. In of that, he's called on the legislature
to include in the budget and tax bills one thousand
dollars rebate to all homesteaded property owners this year. That
(09:10):
is not currently in the House tax bill. So you've
got competing proposals. They're going to have to agree on
what goes to the governor. But really important in this
is the Senate President ben Ala I was going to ask.
He did state in a press conference he wants the
best tax relief possible, but he did express some concern
(09:31):
that the pace of the debate is going in a
direction that he thinks they may need to pull back.
And in the yard room period, which is shorter this
time because session starts in January, we can work through
a big tax cut back both of them, vet both
of them, and you're also passing a huge tax cut
in an election year, which I think is a great
(09:53):
political strategy.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Twenty two minutes past SALNWSA with me from Consumers Defense,
how we were talking about the different tax proposals and
that that really kind of swings us right back to
the budget in that in one way or another, it
addresses and speaks to what kind of government we're going
to have in its size.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Now, one thing I wanted to kind of point out,
you've got both chambers talking very aggressively publicly and in
committee hearing about the need to have transparency and accountability,
but also to cut the size of government and eliminate
wasteful spending and yes, absolutely laudable goals. We should always
(10:35):
be looking to do that, and it really should be
an evergreen process. It should be something that the legislature
is doing all this. It's the philosophy of Florida governance,
lean and mean. However, I do want to point this out.
Florida's state budget per capita is the leanest in the
United States. We spend less per capita at the state
(10:58):
level than any other state in the country. It's just
an objective fact. And so well, I think at the
federal level, especially when you start talking about Doze and
all the money going and the corruption and grift, and
it's at levels unfathomable trillions of dollars at the state level,
which at heart, I'm a federalist. The states created the
(11:21):
federal government, the states create the local government. The state
should be, in my opinion, supreme in terms of governing
at the state level. I really hope we do not
get so hung up on cutting that we end up
excising more than just waste and fraud, and we end
up inadvertently doing even some political damage because we've cut
(11:44):
money in ways that make state operations go in a
poor direction.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
I'm going to borrow from something that I learned thirty
five forty years ago, and it was if you put
efficiency in a front of effectiveness, you lose every single
time you find effective, then you find the most efficient
way to do it. What I hear you saying, and
correct me. If I'm wrong, is if we get too
focused on being efficient, we lose the ability to be effective. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
And you know, to their credit, I think you can't.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
You can't deny the fact that we have done governing really,
really well for the last fifteen twenty years, as long
as I've been really in policy work. But that pendulum
can swing, and it can swing fast. Yeah, And that is,
to use a phrase that we've used a couple of
times in prior weeks, it's how you lose a super majority.
(12:38):
It could be eventually how you lose a majority. We've
got to do governing good as well as efficient.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
As much as Tariff's is a hot button topic in
the nation right now, insurance is the topic in the state.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
And there are a lot of items going on in that,
two things that I think I'm going to highlight, one
of which is something I've not seen happen in all
my years. So back in twenty twenty three to level set,
we had comprehensive tort reform measures and they passed because
the governor put a whole lot of political capital into
(13:13):
getting the chambers to move on it. Because tort excessive
litigation was driving insurance premiums up. So you fast forward
a couple of years, we've got a couple of bills
moving that would completely reverse that course. So you've got
HB fifteen fifty one. That's one of them, and it's
being carried by one of the members who was actually
(13:33):
elected as a Democrat then switched parties. She's also an
attorney who represents individuals suing insurance companies. Yeah, it's still
moving and only has one more committee stop in the House.
The Senate hasn't heard a companion in a single committee,
and normally, in a traditional year, I would say, well,
that means it's dead. You never know this year if
(13:55):
there's gonna be some kind of horse trade that puts
this one in play late in the game.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
The wild one, however, is HB nine to forty seven.
Now this is really wonky. It's about what evidence juries
can hear in assessing damages in some of that litigation. Now,
I don't want to get too granular, but it's It
definitely reverses course from twenty twenty three. It made it
all the way to the House floor. But then the
(14:21):
former Speaker, Paul Renner, he sends out a post on
x weighing in against this bill, and subsequently the House
voted to pull the bill back and send it to committee. Now,
I don't know if one caused the other, or if
there was something that may have been already in a
tight spot, but that one was a new one, even
(14:43):
for me.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Let's talk. Let's talk about something instead that's that's equally infuriating,
but not just to me.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
Auto insurance.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Let's spread the misery, yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Auto insurance. Let's talk about something that's yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Yeah, So what can they do? What can the legislature
do to address auto insurance?
Speaker 2 (14:59):
And it's well, let's set the stage on what the
status quo is. So we currently have what's called a
no fault system, which means every driver has to have
personal injury protection called PIP PIP coverage to cover the
medical expenses and lost wages after an accident, regardless of
who is at fault, and so you don't have in
(15:21):
Florida a way to sue for non economic damage is
pain and suffering. Most states don't have this system, but
most states do not have the issues with trial attorneys
and excessive litigation and all of the furthest towarts. You know,
a lot of it goes down to the rules on
attorneys' fees and who pays them and when, and all
(15:45):
of the little nuances within Florida that have evolved over time. Okay,
but they've evolved, and so we have this system. And
so there have been some efforts to move to what's
called a negligence based system, which is repealing PIP, but
they haven't really addressed the underlying issues on the litigation
(16:05):
and the attorney's fees and all of that. So repealing
PIP without that would, by necessity, those rates would go
even higher. So the legislature a couple of sessions ago,
I think they did pass a bill and send it
to Governor DeSantis, and he vetoed it. He said the
rates would go up if this bill were to go
(16:26):
in in its current form. But they are trying again.
So the House is moving a bill. The Senate companion
bill has not been heard yet, but I do believe
it will be. And this week I've seen a ton
of activity on social media from like big conservative Trump
influencer types trying to push this House bill across the
(16:49):
finish line. And so you have this kind of framing,
and it's set up to be something where they may
try to push it toward the governor and he would
have to explain a veto again if he does, which
if it's in its current form, I would say he's
in the right on vetoing it.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
But time will tell on that ballot initiatives.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Yeah, this is a big one because this is a
problem and it's always been the case as far as
I've been here doing policy work.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
And by problem you mean too easy to amend Florida's
constitution exactly. Okay, So the full House did pass HB
twelve oh five from Jenni Person's malca. It would further
restrict that process, the citizen's initiative process, and I think
it's worth a deep dive. So Florida has more ways
to amended state constitution than any other state. It's five
(17:36):
of them that you've got, the citizens initiative, the legislative initiative,
those two are the most common. You also have the
Constitutional Revision Commission, the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, and
you have the option for a Constitutional convention. The CRC
and the TBRC they meet every twenty years, so you
never have to really worry about them except in a
small setting. The citizen initiative process has effectively been hijacked
(18:01):
over the years. We did increase the threshold from fifty
to sixty percent chambers, but it's still in the kind
of it's something where wealthy special interests are able to
hijacket and get initiatives on the ballot by investing tens
of millions of dollars. And so Jenna Person's Malka's bill
(18:25):
would tighten that. There is a proposed committee bill from
Senator Don Gates to kind of mirror that. It's get
its first hearing in the coming in this week, and
so I'm paying a lot of attention because this is
really a big deal. I just like that they're tightening
down on how and who can get signatures.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Yeah, and so things like you've got to post a
million dollar bond, you can't hold on to signatures for
a month.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
You got ground checks.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
There is one piece of it that I worry about
the constitutionality of it, and it requires you It prohibits
anyone from out of state from being a signature collector.
That gives me a little bit of heartburn in terms
of where litigation might be concentrated. But all told, this
bill is a good move for a state.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
To take forty two minutes past the hour, sal Newso
with me, we're going to run a minute late here
in this segment. But that's just fine because it's important
and you need to know technology what's being talked about
in the session dealing with tech that we ought to
be aware of.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Yeah, so there is a lot moving in the tech space.
You've got a number of bills, a couple of that
I think are important to highlight. The most visible one
is HB seven forty three. It would it would provide
for further restrictions on social media for minors, particularly in
the fourteen and fifteen year old I think are the
(19:50):
thirteen and fourteen year old age rains. The new piece
would mandate that parents or legal guardians of miners under
sixteen years of age would have access to all messages
exchanged by their children. It would also.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Perably mandate that.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
It's dicey.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
I mean that just seems unenforceable.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Potentially, it would also permit law enforcement officers to access
a miner's messages relevant to any investigation, provided that they
have obtained consent from the confirmed parent, a guardian, or
secure to warrant. And it would also prohibit miners from
using or accessing messages that are designed to disappear or
(20:35):
self destruct. And you have these programs I think like
Snapchat and Signal and others that. Yeah, and so I
understand the intent. But to your point on enforceability, I
think there's also in the same way that HB three,
which was the one from last session or two sessions ago,
(21:00):
so that's tied up in litigation. I think this one
would likely also get litigated. It's a It's one of
those ones where I think I want to applaud the
legislature for taking it on, because you know, it's something
that we need to address.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
I just don't think the government should be addressing it.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
I just don't know how. And I'm and I'm with you.
Don't give a phone. I'm with you on this. I mean, yeah,
it's the only.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
Way this could be. Look dat sal and I hate
to belabor this, but but would be for the kids'
messages to automatically appear on the parent's phone.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
And the tech companies and the folks who kind of
advocate for them and their trade associations would point out
that there are dozens of tools out there. Yeah, and
they advertise them to parents. That will allow parents to
have controls over what their kids see. That would immediately
(21:55):
allow them the ability to get all of those messages
and see them. And like I said, it's one where
as a parent, I understand the dilemma. I understand the
intent of the legislature wanting to figure out what the
most appropriate mechanism is. This one, it gives me a
little bit more heartburn.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
All right. Some other notable bills quickly.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Twelve to fifty five Employment of miners. It would allow
kids sixteen to eighteen to have more flexibility in the
hours that they can work. It's moving two thirty four
in the Senate side, increase penalties for killing a law
enforcement officer. Tom Lee could pull the bill from the
floor to address something called the good faith standard language
to help get it through. He had the votes before,
(22:39):
but he wanted more. It passed the full Senate HJR.
Six seven nine term limits for municipal officers. It's moving
closer to getting on the ballot. In twenty twenty six.
Eleven forty four codifying the Hope Florida Program finally passed
a Senate committee. The House has moved it through one stop,
(22:59):
So they're putting it into a posture where.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
They will stay getting a lot of scrutiny from the
media in the state.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
It is indeed, and like you said last week, the
best way to ensure transparency and accountability is codify it,
and so I think they're recognizing that in their moving it.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
What's coming up this week?
Speaker 2 (23:17):
This week You've got today a big Commerce Committee hearing
at three o'clock a couple of the notable bills five
point forty one the minimum wage requirements where you would
have some training wage opportunities. I think it's really really needed. Yep,
along with nine to fifty five closing at least one
of the everified loopholes. Bernie Jocks has got the bill there.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Not good enough.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
It's a good start. I got good enough, let's keep moving.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Not good enough.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Tomorrow at eight am, you've got an Education Committee meeting
with House Bill one twenty three allowing the conversion of
low performing schools to be turned into charter schools. And
I really like this kind of innovative idea. You've got
the State Affairs Committee hearing HB six seventy nine on
term limits. So that's continuing to move and then you've
(24:07):
got Tuesday and Wednesday, the really big rules committees, Fiscal policy,
where you have all of those bills that have got
to get their final stop marathon length bills those are
starting to move, and some really really long floor sessions
where they're getting bills ready for what they call the
second and third reading, where they pass them through with
(24:28):
full chamber votes.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
All right, we'll stop there.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
We will, we will continue on next Monday.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
We'll adjourn on Monday. There are still still.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
There are still days until the end. Thank you, always
a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Sundards out with Consumers Defense forty eight pass
It's the third hour of the morning Show with President Scott.
The band is back together. I'm Preston. He is Grand
Allen in Studio one A running the program today. He's
our he's our designated producer today the DP as opposed
to the DH, which we hope to have him back
(00:25):
doing sometime soon. And joining me in studio is Salnuzzo
of Consumer's Defense. And it's our legislative update. And we
are through five weeks now of the session.
Speaker 2 (00:35):
Yeah, we have passed the halfway point, and I'd like
to say it's all downhill from here, but I have
no clue at this point.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
If I were to ask you from a productivity standpoint,
great at A through F, where are we at?
Speaker 3 (00:52):
It's a great question, I'd probably say a C plus.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Maybe did we get spoiled from the previous few years?
And I mean historically speaking, were we spoiled or were
the last few years what they should have been?
Speaker 2 (01:05):
I would suggest that the last two years under Speaker
Paul Renner we were incredibly spoiled. Okay, and we were
incredibly spoiled because we had a governor and a legislature
that were lockstep. They were aligned, and they were these
are the priorities, This is the agenda, this is the
direction that we want to move the state. We are
going to do it, and they did it, and we
(01:26):
have returned more toward the norm. Yeah, I don't know
that I want to call it the norm because we're
all in the same party and some of the dialogue
and so well, in some of the debate and dialogue,
I would push back a little bit because we are
(01:46):
in many respects, but the dialogue has become a little
bit more public than I would that I'm comfortable with.
But yes, and we'll get to this when we talked proposals,
I think. But yes, we are all in the same party. Yes,
we are having what would traditionally be a very healthy
debate about agenda and pathways forward. And yes, some stuff
(02:10):
falls off, some stuff gets put on. But yeah, I
would go a C.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Plus we are dealing with the legislative session, but you
still have to kind of start with the executive and
the governor.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Yeah, and the really in the last week, he's become
a lot more vocal in what I you know, some
may call he's gone on offense. I would say he's
kind of tactically playing a little bit more defense because
he's having to respond to what the House, in particular
the House is doing, and so he challenged him. There
(02:46):
was a press event or something where he challenged a
number of bills that were moving, specifically called out the
effort to reverse many of the tort reforms that passed
back in twenty twenty three. He also highlighted a bill
that is kind of in my purview professionally and is
really concerning to me, and that's to set up a
Task Force on Carbon s Questration, which is like this
(03:08):
kind of pseudo technology to try and quote unquote capture
carbon emissions, oh lord, before they damage the climate. And
it's really kind of what I would suggest is something
like that is playing policy on the field that the
left dictates the rules. And so those are the things
(03:29):
where he's kind of pointed out, and he actually had
a pretty pointed quote. He said, what I've seen so
far out of the Florida House or representatives, they're not
trying to step on the left's throat. They're giving a
lifeline to the Democratic Party. They're giving a lifeline to
the left. Now, that's that's pretty forceful language. It's not
something we would traditionally see even when you're having differences
(03:50):
on policy between the chambers and the governor's office and so.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
But in this particular case, on that particular issue, he's
on the money.
Speaker 2 (03:58):
On that particular is such we spot on one hundred
percent that bill is a trojan horse and it's not
something that I would ever have envisioned a very conservative
legislature moving through. And it's it's gotten hearings in both chambers,
and so that's where you know, if it's moving in
one chamber and not another, and we expect it's just
(04:21):
going to die, you know, it's one thing. But that's
definitely the case with that one.
Speaker 1 (04:26):
I think most people know, unless they're new to the
state of Florida, there is one mandate they have, and
that is to have a balanced budget. They've got to
do that. The rest is gravy. So where are they
in the budget process?
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Yeah, so one constitutional requirement passed not just a budget,
but a balance budget. The House incentive both moved their
proposals through the Appropriations Committee, and that's the kind of
the first step and getting to what we call the
conferencing process, which is where they come together and negotiate
out all of the details.
Speaker 1 (04:55):
Let me ask you a question. They're four billion dollars
apart right now? Is put some historical kind text to that?
Is that about right? Is that normal? Is that different?
Speaker 2 (05:04):
It's a little bit more. And I had to look
back over the years. It's it's a little bit more
than we've seen traditionally between them. Sometimes it's it's two billions,
Sometimes it can it's gotten as high as three. I
don't know that I've ever seen a four billion dollar gap,
but I did take a look at where they're kind
of what they're looking at and why there is such
(05:25):
a difference. And so a couple of things. First off,
you've got the House at one hundred and thirteen billion
and the Senate at one hundred and seventeen and some change.
So one of the differences is the Senate proposal would
do away with about one thousand full time positions in
state government that have been vacant, and I think they've
been vacant for ninety days. And so the House side
(05:48):
is eliminating seven thousand positions that have been vacant, but
they've been vacant for I think one hundred days or more.
So you've got a piece of that. The Senate's proposed
a four percent pay increase for state employees. The House
doesn't have anything on that side. But the big deal
in this and where I know we're going to talk
about the tax proposals, is the House has the sales
(06:11):
tax base reduction, the rate reduction from six percent to
five point twenty five percent in their budget bill, and
the Senate does not yet have anything in there, And
so that's creating this kind of big gulf between the two.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
If any discussion circled around the Department of Corrections, because
of all the agencies, there's an agency there that is
it's staffing is dependent on populations that they have zero
control over. And I know that Corrections has seven eight
thousand more inmates in its system, but they don't have
more positions and their concerns there. It's a real good question.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
The answer is right now, I don't know, but it's
absolutely something that will be subsequent to this week very
easy to kind of dive in on it and get
a sense of kind of unpacking where is the House
on Public Safety and corrections? Where is the Senate and
where are the specific gaps there? And we can definitely
do that in a future maybe next Monday.
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Okay, So as we're looking at the tax proposals, now, sure,
what are you seeing?
Speaker 2 (07:17):
So last week the House Ways and Means Committee did
pass the House tax plan, and that includes the Speaker's
proposal for a permanent reduction, as I mentioned, from six
to five point two five percent. It does not include
anything on the local options. So like here in Leon County,
I think we have three of them, which takes our
(07:39):
rate from six.
Speaker 1 (07:40):
It's a the max.
Speaker 3 (07:41):
Yeah, it's at the max.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
Uh.
Speaker 2 (07:42):
And the reason for that is they can those are
local options, so they would have to go to a
constitutional amendment to ban those, and they're not going to
do that. In addition, sales tax holidays are currently not
in the tax bill, so in the Speaker's proposal, which
is now a bill moving, they're shifting from from what
(08:03):
we've traditionally done, which is allocating a month forced back
to school, sales tax and all of these other things,
and they're just reducing the rate, which on the whole
I'm in favor of. So now I haven't looked at
the math on how much is saved in those holidays
versus what they're proposing and all of that, but that
(08:24):
does I like that part. However, it's a big contrast
to what the governor's proposing.
Speaker 1 (08:30):
I know that merchants hate the sales tax holidays, yep,
because it causes a disruption to the normal flow of
buying and selling. Absolutely, and when you compare that to
what the governor's proposing, it is a stark difference. It
is a stark difference. And the governor wants to eliminate
property taxes altogether.
Speaker 2 (08:49):
Right. He also acknowledges that it would to get there,
it would require a ballot amendment. It have to be
a constitutional deal, which would be on the twenty twenty
six ballot. In of that, he's called on the legislature
to include in the budget and tax bills one thousand
dollars rebate to all homesteaded property owners this year. That
(09:10):
is not currently in the House tax bill. So you've
got competing proposals. They're going to have to agree on
what goes to the governor. But really important in this
is the Senate President ben Ala I was going to ask.
He did state in a press conference he wants the
best tax relief possible, but he did express some concern
(09:31):
that the pace of the debate is going in a
direction that he thinks they may need to pull back.
And in the yard room period, which is shorter this
time because session starts in January, we can work through
a big tax cut back both of them, vet both
of them, and you're also passing a huge tax cut
in an election year, which I think is a great
(09:53):
political strategy.
Speaker 1 (09:55):
Twenty two minutes past SALNWSA with me from Consumers Defense,
how we were talking about the different tax proposals and
that that really kind of swings us right back to
the budget in that in one way or another, it
addresses and speaks to what kind of government we're going
to have in its size.
Speaker 3 (10:12):
Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 2 (10:12):
Now, one thing I wanted to kind of point out,
you've got both chambers talking very aggressively publicly and in
committee hearing about the need to have transparency and accountability,
but also to cut the size of government and eliminate
wasteful spending and yes, absolutely laudable goals. We should always
(10:35):
be looking to do that, and it really should be
an evergreen process. It should be something that the legislature
is doing all this. It's the philosophy of Florida governance,
lean and mean. However, I do want to point this out.
Florida's state budget per capita is the leanest in the
United States. We spend less per capita at the state
(10:58):
level than any other state in the country. It's just
an objective fact. And so well, I think at the
federal level, especially when you start talking about Doze and
all the money going and the corruption and grift, and
it's at levels unfathomable trillions of dollars at the state level,
which at heart, I'm a federalist. The states created the
(11:21):
federal government, the states create the local government. The state
should be, in my opinion, supreme in terms of governing
at the state level. I really hope we do not
get so hung up on cutting that we end up
excising more than just waste and fraud, and we end
up inadvertently doing even some political damage because we've cut
(11:44):
money in ways that make state operations go in a
poor direction.
Speaker 1 (11:51):
I'm going to borrow from something that I learned thirty
five forty years ago, and it was if you put
efficiency in a front of effectiveness, you lose every single
time you find effective, then you find the most efficient
way to do it. What I hear you saying, and
correct me. If I'm wrong, is if we get too
focused on being efficient, we lose the ability to be effective. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (12:12):
And you know, to their credit, I think you can't.
Speaker 2 (12:16):
You can't deny the fact that we have done governing really,
really well for the last fifteen twenty years, as long
as I've been really in policy work. But that pendulum
can swing, and it can swing fast. Yeah, And that is,
to use a phrase that we've used a couple of
times in prior weeks, it's how you lose a super majority.
(12:38):
It could be eventually how you lose a majority. We've
got to do governing good as well as efficient.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
As much as Tariff's is a hot button topic in
the nation right now, insurance is the topic in the state.
Speaker 3 (12:52):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:53):
And there are a lot of items going on in that,
two things that I think I'm going to highlight, one
of which is something I've not seen happen in all
my years. So back in twenty twenty three to level set,
we had comprehensive tort reform measures and they passed because
the governor put a whole lot of political capital into
(13:13):
getting the chambers to move on it. Because tort excessive
litigation was driving insurance premiums up. So you fast forward
a couple of years, we've got a couple of bills
moving that would completely reverse that course. So you've got
HB fifteen fifty one. That's one of them, and it's
being carried by one of the members who was actually
(13:33):
elected as a Democrat then switched parties. She's also an
attorney who represents individuals suing insurance companies. Yeah, it's still
moving and only has one more committee stop in the House.
The Senate hasn't heard a companion in a single committee,
and normally, in a traditional year, I would say, well,
that means it's dead. You never know this year if
(13:55):
there's gonna be some kind of horse trade that puts
this one in play late in the game.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Okay.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
The wild one, however, is HB nine to forty seven.
Now this is really wonky. It's about what evidence juries
can hear in assessing damages in some of that litigation. Now,
I don't want to get too granular, but it's It
definitely reverses course from twenty twenty three. It made it
all the way to the House floor. But then the
(14:21):
former Speaker, Paul Renner, he sends out a post on
x weighing in against this bill, and subsequently the House
voted to pull the bill back and send it to committee. Now,
I don't know if one caused the other, or if
there was something that may have been already in a
tight spot, but that one was a new one, even
(14:43):
for me.
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Let's talk. Let's talk about something instead that's that's equally infuriating,
but not just to me.
Speaker 3 (14:49):
Auto insurance.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
Let's spread the misery, yeah.
Speaker 3 (14:52):
Auto insurance. Let's talk about something that's yeah.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
Yeah, So what can they do? What can the legislature
do to address auto insurance?
Speaker 2 (14:59):
And it's well, let's set the stage on what the
status quo is. So we currently have what's called a
no fault system, which means every driver has to have
personal injury protection called PIP PIP coverage to cover the
medical expenses and lost wages after an accident, regardless of
who is at fault, and so you don't have in
(15:21):
Florida a way to sue for non economic damage is
pain and suffering. Most states don't have this system, but
most states do not have the issues with trial attorneys
and excessive litigation and all of the furthest towarts. You know,
a lot of it goes down to the rules on
attorneys' fees and who pays them and when, and all
(15:45):
of the little nuances within Florida that have evolved over time. Okay,
but they've evolved, and so we have this system. And
so there have been some efforts to move to what's
called a negligence based system, which is repealing PIP, but
they haven't really addressed the underlying issues on the litigation
(16:05):
and the attorney's fees and all of that. So repealing
PIP without that would, by necessity, those rates would go
even higher. So the legislature a couple of sessions ago,
I think they did pass a bill and send it
to Governor DeSantis, and he vetoed it. He said the
rates would go up if this bill were to go
(16:26):
in in its current form. But they are trying again.
So the House is moving a bill. The Senate companion
bill has not been heard yet, but I do believe
it will be. And this week I've seen a ton
of activity on social media from like big conservative Trump
influencer types trying to push this House bill across the
(16:49):
finish line. And so you have this kind of framing,
and it's set up to be something where they may
try to push it toward the governor and he would
have to explain a veto again if he does, which
if it's in its current form, I would say he's
in the right on vetoing it.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
But time will tell on that ballot initiatives.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
Yeah, this is a big one because this is a
problem and it's always been the case as far as
I've been here doing policy work.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
And by problem you mean too easy to amend Florida's
constitution exactly. Okay, So the full House did pass HB
twelve oh five from Jenni Person's malca. It would further
restrict that process, the citizen's initiative process, and I think
it's worth a deep dive. So Florida has more ways
to amended state constitution than any other state. It's five
(17:36):
of them that you've got, the citizens initiative, the legislative initiative,
those two are the most common. You also have the
Constitutional Revision Commission, the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, and
you have the option for a Constitutional convention. The CRC
and the TBRC they meet every twenty years, so you
never have to really worry about them except in a
small setting. The citizen initiative process has effectively been hijacked
(18:01):
over the years. We did increase the threshold from fifty
to sixty percent chambers, but it's still in the kind
of it's something where wealthy special interests are able to
hijacket and get initiatives on the ballot by investing tens
of millions of dollars. And so Jenna Person's Malka's bill
(18:25):
would tighten that. There is a proposed committee bill from
Senator Don Gates to kind of mirror that. It's get
its first hearing in the coming in this week, and
so I'm paying a lot of attention because this is
really a big deal. I just like that they're tightening
down on how and who can get signatures.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Yeah, and so things like you've got to post a
million dollar bond, you can't hold on to signatures for
a month.
Speaker 1 (18:49):
You got ground checks.
Speaker 2 (18:52):
There is one piece of it that I worry about
the constitutionality of it, and it requires you It prohibits
anyone from out of state from being a signature collector.
That gives me a little bit of heartburn in terms
of where litigation might be concentrated. But all told, this
bill is a good move for a state.
Speaker 1 (19:13):
To take forty two minutes past the hour, sal Newso
with me, we're going to run a minute late here
in this segment. But that's just fine because it's important
and you need to know technology what's being talked about
in the session dealing with tech that we ought to
be aware of.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
Yeah, so there is a lot moving in the tech space.
You've got a number of bills, a couple of that
I think are important to highlight. The most visible one
is HB seven forty three. It would it would provide
for further restrictions on social media for minors, particularly in
the fourteen and fifteen year old I think are the
(19:50):
thirteen and fourteen year old age rains. The new piece
would mandate that parents or legal guardians of miners under
sixteen years of age would have access to all messages
exchanged by their children. It would also.
Speaker 1 (20:06):
Perably mandate that.
Speaker 3 (20:10):
It's dicey.
Speaker 1 (20:11):
I mean that just seems unenforceable.
Speaker 2 (20:14):
Potentially, it would also permit law enforcement officers to access
a miner's messages relevant to any investigation, provided that they
have obtained consent from the confirmed parent, a guardian, or
secure to warrant. And it would also prohibit miners from
using or accessing messages that are designed to disappear or
(20:35):
self destruct. And you have these programs I think like
Snapchat and Signal and others that. Yeah, and so I
understand the intent. But to your point on enforceability, I
think there's also in the same way that HB three,
which was the one from last session or two sessions ago,
(21:00):
so that's tied up in litigation. I think this one
would likely also get litigated. It's a It's one of
those ones where I think I want to applaud the
legislature for taking it on, because you know, it's something
that we need to address.
Speaker 1 (21:16):
I just don't think the government should be addressing it.
Speaker 3 (21:19):
I just don't know how. And I'm and I'm with you.
Don't give a phone. I'm with you on this. I mean, yeah,
it's the only.
Speaker 1 (21:26):
Way this could be. Look dat sal and I hate
to belabor this, but but would be for the kids'
messages to automatically appear on the parent's phone.
Speaker 2 (21:34):
And the tech companies and the folks who kind of
advocate for them and their trade associations would point out
that there are dozens of tools out there. Yeah, and
they advertise them to parents. That will allow parents to
have controls over what their kids see. That would immediately
(21:55):
allow them the ability to get all of those messages
and see them. And like I said, it's one where
as a parent, I understand the dilemma. I understand the
intent of the legislature wanting to figure out what the
most appropriate mechanism is. This one, it gives me a
little bit more heartburn.
Speaker 1 (22:15):
All right. Some other notable bills quickly.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
Twelve to fifty five Employment of miners. It would allow
kids sixteen to eighteen to have more flexibility in the
hours that they can work. It's moving two thirty four
in the Senate side, increase penalties for killing a law
enforcement officer. Tom Lee could pull the bill from the
floor to address something called the good faith standard language
to help get it through. He had the votes before,
(22:39):
but he wanted more. It passed the full Senate HJR.
Six seven nine term limits for municipal officers. It's moving
closer to getting on the ballot. In twenty twenty six.
Eleven forty four codifying the Hope Florida Program finally passed
a Senate committee. The House has moved it through one stop,
(22:59):
So they're putting it into a posture where.
Speaker 1 (23:01):
They will stay getting a lot of scrutiny from the
media in the state.
Speaker 2 (23:05):
It is indeed, and like you said last week, the
best way to ensure transparency and accountability is codify it,
and so I think they're recognizing that in their moving it.
Speaker 1 (23:16):
What's coming up this week?
Speaker 2 (23:17):
This week You've got today a big Commerce Committee hearing
at three o'clock a couple of the notable bills five
point forty one the minimum wage requirements where you would
have some training wage opportunities. I think it's really really needed. Yep,
along with nine to fifty five closing at least one
of the everified loopholes. Bernie Jocks has got the bill there.
Speaker 1 (23:39):
Not good enough.
Speaker 3 (23:40):
It's a good start. I got good enough, let's keep moving.
Speaker 1 (23:44):
Not good enough.
Speaker 2 (23:46):
Tomorrow at eight am, you've got an Education Committee meeting
with House Bill one twenty three allowing the conversion of
low performing schools to be turned into charter schools. And
I really like this kind of innovative idea. You've got
the State Affairs Committee hearing HB six seventy nine on
term limits. So that's continuing to move and then you've
(24:07):
got Tuesday and Wednesday, the really big rules committees, Fiscal policy,
where you have all of those bills that have got
to get their final stop marathon length bills those are
starting to move, and some really really long floor sessions
where they're getting bills ready for what they call the
second and third reading, where they pass them through with
(24:28):
full chamber votes.
Speaker 1 (24:29):
All right, we'll stop there.
Speaker 3 (24:32):
We will, we will continue on next Monday.
Speaker 1 (24:34):
We'll adjourn on Monday. There are still still.
Speaker 2 (24:37):
There are still days until the end. Thank you, always
a pleasure.
Speaker 1 (24:41):
Sundards out with Consumers Defense forty eight pass
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.