Cellphone users are “overtaxed,” often with hidden charges, and the combined federal, state and local rates can top 20 percent, according to the Tax Foundation.

The number of cellphone subscribers has grown from 48.7 million in 1997 to 321 million in 2012 — more than the official U.S. population — and 34 percent of households now use only wireless phones.

“This trend toward cellphones has not gone unnoticed by state and local governments, many of which have targeted wireless services for higher taxes,” the Tax Foundation observes.

American cellphone users pay an average of 17.18 percent in taxes and fees on their cellphone bill — an average of 11.36 percent in state and local charges, plus federal charges.

The highest combined rate is in Nebraska, 24.49 percent, including the state and local rate of 18.67 percent.

The combined rate exceeds 20 percent in six other states — Washington, New York, Florida, Illinois, Rhode Island, and Missouri.

More than half of all states, 26, have an average state-local rate over 10 percent.

Oregon has the lowest combined rate, 7.67 percent, thanks to a state-local rate of just 1.85 percent. Only two other states have a combined rate of less than 10 percent — Nevada (7.95 percent) and Idaho (8.1 percent).

States favor cellphone taxes “because they can raise revenue in a relatively hidden way,” according to the Foundation, which points out that Texas “even sued Sprint because the phone company listed a state tax as a line item on its bill rather than hiding it from customers.”

In addition to sales taxes on cellphones, seven states also levy gross receipts taxes on wireless service providers, and those taxes are passed along to customers in higher prices.

“Cellphone users are overtaxed relative to consumers of other goods and at risk of double taxation,” the Foundation concludes.

“State and local governments should not single out one product for stealth tax increases as they are doing with wireless services.”

While most have consider Alex Sink making a repeat run, the most recent name being discussed around the table has been former Republican Governor Charlie Crist – as a Democrat. This of course assumes he gets out of a primary, which today former state Senator Nan Rich has announced her ambitions.

So cutting to the chase, a statewide poll was fielded (May 23-25) and one of the match-ups was:
Supposing for a moment that the election for governor of Florida was held today and the candidates were…. Rick Scott, running as the Republican…. and Charlie Crist, running as the Democrat candidate… which one would you vote for?

Rick Scott 34.1%
Charlie Crist 48.1%
Other 5.0%
Don’t Know/Refused 12.8%

To break the numbers down, obviously Republicans stick with Gov. Scott at 60.3% and garnering only 21.6 of the unaffiliated voters. The pop factor is that Gov. Charlie Crist grabs 74.2% of the Democrat vote and 52.2% of the unaffiliated voters.

A few other breakdowns of interest:
African-Americans – 88.1% support Crist
White’s – 43.4% Crist, 39.4% Scott
Hispanic – 37.9% Scott, 35.3 Crist, while 23% stated Do Not Know.

Gender: Crist leads Men 45% to Scott’s 39%. Women 51% support Crist to Scott’s 30%.

As for Age breakdowns, Crist led all categories: 18-29: 52% to 27%; 30-44: 44% to 38%; 45-59: 55% to 28%; 60+: 45% to 38%

The information above was polled of likely registered Florida voters between May 23-25, 2012 of 802 respondents and a margin of error of +/- 3.46% by Florida Opinion Research. To learn more about Florida Opinion Research visit www.floridaomnibussurvey.com

Article written by Wayne Bertsch wayne@wayneoh.com

By: Kenric Ward | Posted: April 21, 2012 3:55 AM

While publicly posturing for “fairness” in redistricting, a group of top Florida Democrats privately pushed for maps that would benefit party brass, according to documents obtained by Sunshine State News.Among the maneuvers detailed in intra-party emails and other correspondence about Senate district boundaries that would ultimately come under review by the state Supreme Court:Democratic Party Chairman Rod Smith “attempted to cut a deal to alter an area of the state that was not objected to in any way by the Florida Supreme Court for the sole purpose of creating a district for himself so he could return to the state Senate. ”  Another state Senate seat would be drawn for Volusia County Democratic Chairman Frank Bruno.

Changes would be made in Broward County to “further weaken the area represented by Senator Ellyn Bogdanoff,” R-Fort Lauderdale.  In exchange, the Democratic Party would assure the necessary votes for the revised maps, drop its lawsuit and file a brief in support of the plan at the high court.

An FDP spokesman flatly denied the scenario.”This is not only incorrect, it is preposterous. A total fabrication,” said David Bergstein, the party’s deputy communications director.  Bergstein refused further comment and declined to make Smith available for an interview.  But Redistricting Committee Chairman Don Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, confirmed that he was approached by Democrats “to enter into some kind of political deal.”

“I was told if I agreed to certain political results, that a bipartisan vote would be promised on the Senate floor and Democrats would withdraw their objections. It was sold as something that would help me maintain the Senate presidency and palliate the Democrats.  ”I refused,” said Gaetz, whom Republicans elected to become Senate president in 2013.Gaetz said it was “unfortunate that there were no submissions of any [redistricting] plans in the public process. (Senate Minority) Leader (Nan) Rich filed one, then withdrew it,” Gaetz related.

“The (redistricting) committee met 32 times in public hearings … I requested any senator or interest group to come forward with any suggestion, criticism or plan so the public could see it as part of the open process. “We provided opportunities for open proposals and got none,” he added. “Following the clear language of Amendment 5 and Amendment 6, there was no way I could have been part of any deal or arrangement with a political result to help me or the Democrats or to safeguard Republicans seats.

That would have been clearly unconstitutional.”But that didn’t stop the Democrats from trying to work a backroom deal. Over a week-long period immediately prior to the “extraordinary session” on redistricting, Gaetz said Smith called him twice. “He wanted to meet away from the Capitol to talk about a deal. I said I would meet at the Capitol, that there would be no clandestine meetings. We met in my office.”

Gaetz said he was also approached separately by former Sen. Steve Geller and by Rep. Ron Saunders, “who asked me to come to his House office, where he said he had a map that would be the ‘deal.” “The two met and Gaetz said he took the map, unopened, to the staff at the redistricting panel. He does not know what, if anything, came of it. “I never agreed to anything,” Gaetz told Sunshine State News. Geller, who appeared in memos and texts as a “go-between” for the FDP chairman, branded as “categorically untrue” any suggestion that Smith wants to get back to the Senate. “Rod has never once discussed with me any desire to return to the Florida Senate. He is a close friend, and I am quite confident that he has no desire to return to the Senate. “In a tongue-in-cheek reference, Geller added: “I am not certain that his wife can afford the high-priced lawyers that she’d need to defend herself for the murder trial that would occur after she kills Rod if he even suggested his returning to the Florida Senate.”

“Your sources are clearly making things up for partisan reasons,” Geller said. FDP executive director Scott Arceneaux, who also participated in the intra-party emails, did not respond to Sunshine State News’ request for comment. A Republican operative, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Smith has played a double-game on redistricting. Voting for the (current) maps in 2002, the then-senator from Gainesville complained, “Florida Republicans have taken a state — which experts have long considered one of the most mal-apportioned states in the country — and worsened it.”

Smith and other Democrats at the time accused the GOP of “racial gerrymandering.” Now, a decade later, Smith’s team angled for maps that “weaken or eliminate protected minority seats,” said a source close to the situation. But it was all for naught. Whatever strategies were hatched behind closed doors, the “deal” never came together as Gaetz rejected the gambit.”It would have been unethical and unconstitutional to engineer a deal,” Gaetz said. Democrats encountered more rough sledding on Friday as a skeptical Supreme Court appeared to take a dim view of their objections to the GOP-approved revisions.Contending that Republicans could not use minority voting rights as a “shield” to redistrict for political gain, Democrats said the Legislature should have started with a fresh slate. But the judges who rejected the first version of the Senate maps were unimpressed with the Democrats’ plea for an alternative. just so not there, Justice Barbara Pariente said.Gaetz on Friday stressed that he was “not impugning integrity” of Rich, D-Sunrise.”Her objections were in public and on the record. Her decision to offer an alternative was done the right way — in the open.”Gaetz added that incoming Democratic leader Chris Smith, D-West Palm Beach, steered clear of the controversy. “He did not approach me either.”

Reach Kenric Ward at kward@sunshinestatenews.com or at (772) 801-5341.

Tallahassee - Florida House Speaker Dean Cannon (R-Winter Park) today released the following statement regarding the Florida Supreme Court unanimously upholding the constitutionality of the State House of Representatives map drawn by the Florida Legislature during the 2012 redistricting process.

“We appreciate the preparation, thorough review and thoughtfulness of the court’s response. Throughout the redistricting process, the House demonstrated a commitment to following the letter of the law, and I am proud of Speaker-Designate Weatherford and all of our Members who worked so hard to craft this new map.

“We understand the difficulty of the court’s duty to review the application of new
constitutional language.  We appreciate the court providing input as their guidance will provide a great deal of help moving forward.”

Florida Supreme Court’s Ruling on State Legislative
Redistricting Maps

Tallahassee, Fla. – Florida House Redistricting
Committee Chairman Will Weatherford (R-Wesley Chapel) today released the
following statement regarding the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling on state
legislative redistricting maps:

“I am pleased the Florida Supreme Court agrees that the
House Redistricting map meets the requirements of Florida’s constitution and is
legally compliant.  The House map is the product of an unprecedented level
of public outreach, committee meetings with members on both sides of the aisle
and a careful and thorough review of our constitutional redistricting
requirements.  Our map prioritizes sound principles over politics and I’m
proud of my colleagues for producing a legally compliant map that accurately
reflects the wishes of residents from around the state.”

·        Total Budget:  $70.0 billion

o  General Revenue Funds $24.8 billion

o  State Trust Funds $20.4 billion

o  Federal Funds $24.9 billion

·        Compared to the FY 2011-12 Budget – up by $668.5 million (1.0%)

o  General Revenue Funds – up by $1.6 billion (6.9%)

o  State Trust Funds – down by $1.2 billion (-5.4%)

o  Federal Funds – up by $233.2 million (0.9%)

·        Compared to the Base Budget — up by $10.7 billion (18.0%)

o  General Revenue Funds – up by $2.0 billion (8.7%)

o  State Trust Funds – up by $4.6 billion (29.1%)

o  Federal Funds – up by $4.1 billion (19.7%)

·
FTE’s

o  FY  2012-13 FTE = 117,882

o  FY  2011-12 FTE = 122,237

o  Reduction of 4,355 FTE (-3.6%)

·
Trust Fund Sweeps — $542.1 million

o  Agriculture & Natural Resources  - $45.7 million

o  Government Operations — $24.3 million

o  Health Care — $22.0 million

o  Transportation & Economic Development – $96.7 million

o  Appropriations Committee — $3.5 Million

o  Lawton Chiles Endowment Fund — $350.0 million

###

Tallahassee – Florida House Speaker Dean Cannon (R-Winter Park) today released the following statement regarding Leon County Circuit Court Judge Jackie Fulford’s ruling on pension
reform measures passed during the 2011 Legislative Session.

“I look forward to reviewing Judge Fulford’s order in detail in the coming days. While
I respect the authority of the court to offer an opinion in this case, I disagree with Judge Fulford’s position.”

“Fiscally responsible adjustments to the Florida Retirement System protect the long-term solvency of the program, ensure that we can avoid massive layoffs and severe cuts to public employee pay and modernize our program, bringing Florida more in line with the private sector and the majority of states that require a modest employee contribution to retirement benefits.”

“The ruling of a trial court judge is the first and not the final step. Today’s ruling will have no immediate impact on the passage of the 2012-2013 General Appropriations Act, which the House will take up this Friday in fulfillment of our constitutional responsibility to pass a balanced budget.“

TO:                        
Members, Florida House of Representatives

FROM:                 
Dean Cannon, Speaker

DATE:
                  
March 5, 2012

RE:                         
Final Week Procedure

As we enter the final week, it seems an appropriate time for
a reminder regarding the basics of House Rules, practices, and
procedures. 

Budget Conference

Chairman Grimsley and Chairman Alexander are expected to
resolve all outstanding items in the General Appropriations Act and
Implementing Bill today.  They will continue to meet over the next several
days to resolve outstanding issues related to conforming bills. 

House Bills on Second Reading

Sunday, March 4, 2012, was the 55^th day of the
regular session.  Pursuant to House Rule 10.18, the House may no longer
consider a House bill on second reading.  If your House bill was not on a
Special Order Calendar by last Friday, March 2, 2012, then you should not
anticipate that your House bill will be considered by the House.  

Senate Bills Not Previously Considered by the House

Pursuant to Rule 10.19, the House may not take up (for the
first time) Senate bills after Wednesday, March 7, 2012.   Over the
last two years, our consistent House practice has been not to vote on a Senate
bill unless the House companion bill has been reported favorably out of all of
its committees or the Senate bill itself has been referred to and voted out of
House committees. 

Returning Messages

In the past, some Members have confused House messages with
returning messages.  A bill in House messages is a Senate bill
first passed by the Senate that has not yet been heard in the House.  The
House’s consideration of that bill will be governed by the rules and procedures
outlined in the paragraph above.  A bill in returning messages is a
bill (either a House bill or a Senate bill) that has already passed the
House and has been amended by the Senate.

The House may consider returning messages from the Senate
until Day 60 of Session. 

In working with your Senate sponsors on the content of
returning messages, please be aware that the House will not accept returning
messages that seek to bypass the prohibition on considering bills that are dead
in committee.   I have tasked our House Committee Chairs with
reviewing returning messages to ensure that unctuous, unvetted policy issues
are not introduced during the last week of Session. 

Schedule

We
will begin Session each day at 10:00 a.m.  However, due to the large
volume of House bills in Senate messages and the comparatively few Senate bills
in House messages, Members should anticipate extended recesses throughout the
day.  Until final adjournment for each day, Members are advised to remain
within 30 minutes of the Capitol.