Florida state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.
The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Florida state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Florida; a state budget is not the federal budget.
Explore Florida readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Florida officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Florida effect.
Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Florida change.
Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.
No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.
Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.
7 of 7 reviewed Florida actions match · 7 date markers shown. 52 major events shown separately.
The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.
Florida milestones include its constitutional wage schedule, fuel-tax holiday, housing and education laws, health and energy legislation, theft-law changes, budget approval and pandemic directives, where relevant to this topic. Statutory amounts and national estimates are not observed changes in Florida readings.
Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.
Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Florida stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Florida has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $166.39B | — |
| #2 | New York | $120.59B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $70.05B | — |
| #4 | Massachusetts | $65.87B | — |
| #5 | New Jersey | $57.23B | — |
| #6 | Pennsylvania | $48.67B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $43.38B | — |
| #8 | Virginia | $33.73B | — |
| #9 | Connecticut | $33.27B | — |
| #10 | Ohio | $32.29B | — |
| #11 | Washington | $30.62B | — |
| #12 | Maryland | $25.9B | — |
| #13 | Michigan | $25.02B | — |
| #14 | Colorado | $23.57B | — |
| #15 | Wisconsin | $22.79B | — |
| #16 | Florida · your comparison | $20.14B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $17.03B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $16.91B | — |
| #19 | Louisiana | $16.09B | — |
| #20 | South Carolina | $15.36B | — |
| #21 | West Virginia | $15.08B | — |
| #22 | Georgia | $14.05B | — |
| #23 | North Carolina | $13.13B | — |
| #24 | Hawaii | $11.72B | — |
| #25 | Rhode Island | $11.41B | — |
| #26 | Alabama | $10.99B | — |
| #27 | Oklahoma | $10.15B | — |
| #28 | Kentucky | $10.08B | — |
| #29 | Tennessee | $9.03B | — |
| #30 | Indiana | $8.52B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $8.06B | — |
| #32 | Arkansas | $8.05B | — |
| #33 | Mississippi | $7.72B | — |
| #34 | New Hampshire | $7.58B | — |
| #35 | Kansas | $7.16B | — |
| #36 | New Mexico | $7.12B | — |
| #37 | Missouri | $6.99B | — |
| #38 | Arizona | $6.88B | — |
| #39 | Alaska | $5.72B | — |
| #40 | Utah | $5.55B | — |
| #41 | Maine | $5.3B | — |
| #42 | North Dakota | $4.89B | — |
| #43 | South Dakota | $4.67B | — |
| #44 | Delaware | $3.69B | — |
| #45 | Nebraska | $3.39B | — |
| #46 | Nevada | $2.89B | — |
| #47 | Montana | $2.76B | — |
| #48 | Vermont | $2.67B | — |
| #49 | Wyoming | $1.26B | — |
| #50 | Idaho | $728.59M | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Census category T09.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Florida stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Florida has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | Texas | $54.35B | — |
| #2 | California | $53.33B | — |
| #3 | Florida · your comparison | $40.09B | — |
| #4 | Washington | $22.81B | — |
| #5 | New York | $19.99B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $16.33B | — |
| #7 | Illinois | $16.05B | — |
| #8 | Pennsylvania | $15.6B | — |
| #9 | New Jersey | $14.31B | — |
| #10 | Tennessee | $14.08B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $13.16B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $12.7B | — |
| #13 | North Carolina | $12.16B | — |
| #14 | Indiana | $10.96B | — |
| #15 | Massachusetts | $9.4B | — |
| #16 | Georgia | $9.01B | — |
| #17 | Minnesota | $8.49B | — |
| #18 | Nevada | $8.4B | — |
| #19 | Wisconsin | $7.59B | — |
| #20 | Virginia | $7.4B | — |
| #21 | Maryland | $6.85B | — |
| #22 | South Carolina | $6.44B | — |
| #23 | Connecticut | $6.23B | — |
| #24 | Kentucky | $5.8B | — |
| #25 | Missouri | $5.26B | — |
| #26 | Mississippi | $5.07B | — |
| #27 | Arkansas | $5.07B | — |
| #28 | Louisiana | $4.87B | — |
| #29 | Hawaii | $4.79B | — |
| #30 | Colorado | $4.67B | — |
| #31 | Iowa | $4.64B | — |
| #32 | Utah | $4.63B | — |
| #33 | Alabama | $4.59B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $4.33B | — |
| #35 | New Mexico | $4.33B | — |
| #36 | Oklahoma | $3.81B | — |
| #37 | Idaho | $3.09B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $2.97B | — |
| #39 | Maine | $2.35B | — |
| #40 | West Virginia | $1.82B | — |
| #41 | South Dakota | $1.68B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $1.63B | — |
| #43 | Oregon | $1.34B | — |
| #44 | North Dakota | $1.32B | — |
| #45 | Wyoming | $1.01B | — |
| #46 | Vermont | $597.33M | — |
| #47 | Alaska | $0 | — |
| #47 | Delaware | $0 | — |
| #47 | Montana | $0 | — |
| #47 | New Hampshire | $0 | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Florida appropriations act.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Florida stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Florida has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $156.71B | — |
| #2 | New York | $97.35B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $57.32B | — |
| #4 | Illinois | $41.13B | — |
| #5 | Florida · your comparison | $40.11B | — |
| #6 | Ohio | $39.77B | — |
| #7 | Pennsylvania | $39.34B | — |
| #8 | Massachusetts | $34.12B | — |
| #9 | North Carolina | $30.64B | — |
| #10 | New Jersey | $28.06B | — |
| #11 | Arizona | $26.02B | — |
| #12 | Michigan | $24.37B | — |
| #13 | Virginia | $23.68B | — |
| #14 | Minnesota | $23.37B | — |
| #15 | Indiana | $22.93B | — |
| #16 | Maryland | $21.61B | — |
| #17 | Kentucky | $20.54B | — |
| #18 | Oregon | $20.47B | — |
| #19 | Washington | $19.6B | — |
| #20 | Georgia | $18.99B | — |
| #21 | Louisiana | $18.69B | — |
| #22 | Tennessee | $16.42B | — |
| #23 | Wisconsin | $16.26B | — |
| #24 | Missouri | $15.65B | — |
| #25 | Oklahoma | $14.57B | — |
| #26 | Colorado | $13.6B | — |
| #27 | South Carolina | $12.84B | — |
| #28 | New Mexico | $10.72B | — |
| #29 | Iowa | $10.26B | — |
| #30 | Alabama | $9.73B | — |
| #31 | Arkansas | $8.67B | — |
| #32 | Mississippi | $8.08B | — |
| #33 | Utah | $6.91B | — |
| #34 | Kansas | $6.84B | — |
| #35 | Nevada | $6.62B | — |
| #36 | West Virginia | $6.24B | — |
| #37 | Maine | $5.7B | — |
| #38 | Nebraska | $4.97B | — |
| #39 | Connecticut | $4.88B | — |
| #40 | Rhode Island | $4.54B | — |
| #41 | Hawaii | $4.14B | — |
| #42 | Delaware | $3.97B | — |
| #43 | Idaho | $3.73B | — |
| #44 | Alaska | $3.27B | — |
| #45 | Montana | $2.89B | — |
| #46 | New Hampshire | $2.72B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $2.69B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $2.09B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $1.95B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $1.09B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The enacted plan, pre-veto categories, and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.
#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.
Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.
State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and date from Florida’s FY2026–27 enacted appropriations and FY2025 audited expenses shown below.
Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Florida stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.
Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Florida has a dark outline.
Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.
50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.
| Rank | State | Value | Comparison notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| #1 | California | $287.03B | — |
| #2 | New York | $161.37B | — |
| #3 | Texas | $136.18B | — |
| #4 | Florida · your comparison | $86.61B | — |
| #5 | Pennsylvania | $77.15B | — |
| #6 | Illinois | $75.67B | — |
| #7 | Ohio | $66.77B | — |
| #8 | New Jersey | $64.53B | — |
| #9 | Massachusetts | $61.38B | — |
| #10 | North Carolina | $59.01B | — |
| #11 | Michigan | $57.27B | — |
| #12 | Virginia | $53.45B | — |
| #13 | Washington | $49.82B | — |
| #14 | Georgia | $45.19B | — |
| #15 | Maryland | $45.06B | — |
| #16 | Oregon | $41.41B | — |
| #17 | Arizona | $38.71B | — |
| #18 | Minnesota | $38.1B | — |
| #19 | Indiana | $37.4B | — |
| #20 | Kentucky | $36.94B | — |
| #21 | Wisconsin | $34.5B | — |
| #22 | Missouri | $34.43B | — |
| #23 | South Carolina | $32.85B | — |
| #24 | Colorado | $32.73B | — |
| #25 | Louisiana | $31.67B | — |
| #26 | Tennessee | $31.12B | — |
| #27 | Alabama | $26.99B | — |
| #28 | Oklahoma | $24.28B | — |
| #29 | Utah | $22.7B | — |
| #30 | New Mexico | $21.94B | — |
| #31 | Connecticut | $21.22B | — |
| #32 | Iowa | $19.89B | — |
| #33 | Kansas | $18.39B | — |
| #34 | Hawaii | $16.62B | — |
| #35 | Mississippi | $16.46B | — |
| #36 | Arkansas | $16.28B | — |
| #37 | West Virginia | $13.19B | — |
| #38 | Nevada | $12.43B | — |
| #39 | Nebraska | $10.41B | — |
| #40 | Maine | $10.12B | — |
| #41 | Delaware | $9.24B | — |
| #42 | Rhode Island | $8.93B | — |
| #43 | Alaska | $8.4B | — |
| #44 | Idaho | $8.21B | — |
| #45 | New Hampshire | $7.12B | — |
| #46 | Montana | $6.44B | — |
| #47 | Vermont | $6.28B | — |
| #48 | North Dakota | $5.63B | — |
| #49 | South Dakota | $4.55B | — |
| #50 | Wyoming | $4.01B | — |
All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.
The final appropriation printed for Chapter 2026-232 after specific line-item vetoes. This is spending authority in the General Appropriations Act—not tax collections, audited expenses, or the Governor's differently scoped summary of the broader spending plan.
Shares of the $61.5 billion in taxes reported as general revenue by Florida's primary government. This denominator excludes federal grants, service charges, investment income, lottery sales, and locally levied property taxes.
The enrolled appropriations act grouped $114.5 billion by legislative section. The governor's later line-item vetoes reduced the final enacted total to $113.6 billion, so these section figures should not be added to the final total above.
Audited government-wide activity for Florida's primary government, rounded to the nearest million in the ACFR's management discussion. These are accounting results, not the FY2026–27 budget.
Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt from FactVote’s Florida candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.
Florida must base its investment priorities entirely on fiscal responsibility, long-term stability, and securing the financial future of our communities, which includes robust, reliable pension management. Our investments should focus on infrastructure, education, and resilience projects that yield …
Florida must base its investment priorities entirely on fiscal responsibility, long-term stability, and securing the financial future of our communities, which includes robust, reliable pension management. Our investments should focus on infrastructure, education, and resilience projects that yield tangible economic returns. Fiduciary duty and objective data, not partisan gridlock, must guide financial decisions. The financial health of the state and protecting taxpayers must always take precedence over using public funds to wage political or social battles.Earle Ford direct candidate responses ↗
Florida's biggest economic risks are housing affordability, rising insurance costs, rapid population growth, strained infrastructure, and the protection of our water resources. We must also prepare for increasing energy demands from emerging technologies without overburdening taxpayers or depleting …
Florida's biggest economic risks are housing affordability, rising insurance costs, rapid population growth, strained infrastructure, and the protection of our water resources. We must also prepare for increasing energy demands from emerging technologies without overburdening taxpayers or depleting natural resources. Ignoring these issues could make Florida unaffordable for families, workers, retirees, and small businesses. Growth matters, but it needs to be sustainable. As CFO, I will advocate for fiscal discipline, long-term planning, and transparency so decisions are based on facts and sound financial principles. Florida's economy will remain strong only if we protect affordability, invest responsibly, and preserve the resources that make our state a great place to live and do business.Frank William Collige direct candidate responses ↗
I would strengthen and expand "Farm to Food Bank" Projects: Utilizing TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Project Grants helps local growers harvest, package, and transport less-marketable or excess crops directly to local feeding programs. I'd double down on programs like Farmers Feeding Florida to subsidize o…
I would strengthen and expand "Farm to Food Bank" Projects: Utilizing TEFAP Farm to Food Bank Project Grants helps local growers harvest, package, and transport less-marketable or excess crops directly to local feeding programs. I'd double down on programs like Farmers Feeding Florida to subsidize operational costs for local farmers while stabilizing the food bank supply chain. I would advocate for and allocate more state budget dollars toward food bank infrastructure. Investing directly in cold-storage expansions and local distribution fleets allows contracted agencies to manage sudden influxes of USDA foods without incurring localized deficits. I would implement stricter, more transparent pre-award audits on regional contractors to ensure that selected distribution agencies have the validated refrigeration, staff, and geographical outreach to fulfill their contracts before emergency food is bottlenecked. I would also establish cross-agency contingency plans with DCF.Joey Mendoza Atkins direct candidate responses ↗
This section matches specific budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt terms in retained, attributed source text from published Florida candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.
Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.
Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Florida legislators and Florida’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Florida’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.
6 matching sponsorships or proposals · 4 Florida incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.
Governor of Florida · R–FL
1 proposalFeb 14, 2025 · Budget recommendation announced
Gov. Ron DeSantis · Issued
The Governor recommended pay increases for state law-enforcement officers and firefighters in his proposed Fiscal Year 2025–26 budget.
The Governor announced the recommendation on February 14, 2025.
The budget recommendation directly concerns state law-enforcement staffing and compensation. It is public-safety capacity context, remains a proposal in this source, and does not establish an effect on the displayed crime rate.
Retained Florida evidence context: Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
he is recommending pay increases for state law enforcement officers and firefightersReview official supporting evidence ↗
Florida House · District 4 · R–FL
1 proposalMar 13, 2026 · Died pending reference review under Rule 4.7(2)
Rep. Patt Maney · Sponsored
Correctional Facilities Financing and Capital Improvements; Provides appropriation to DOC; requires appropriated funds to be used in certain manner; requires department to begin planning & design phase for construction of certain facilities; requires department to make certain recommendations to Legislature; requires department to contract with construction management entity in certain circumstances; authorizes Division of Bond Finance of SBA to issue bonds for certain purposes; creates financing oversight…
The official Florida Legislature record lists this final action on March 13, 2026: Senate - Died pending reference review under Rule 4.7(2).
The bill directly governs criminal-justice, corrections, law-enforcement, victim, pretrial, probation, parole, or emergency-response policy. It does not establish an effect on the displayed crime or incarceration measures.
Retained Florida evidence context: Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Correctional Facilities Financing and Capital Improvements; Provides appropriation to DOC; requires appropriated funds to be used in certain manner; requires department to begin planning & design phase for construction of certain facilities; requires department to make certain recommendations to…Review official supporting evidence ↗
Florida House · District 10 · R–FL
1 proposalApr 5, 2022 · Enacted · Chapter 2022-23
Rep. Robert Charles "Chuck" Brannan III · Sponsored
Law Enforcement ; Authorizes a sheriff to transfer funds between specified categories and code levels after his or her budget is approved; revises salary minimums for county sheriffs; provides for adoption benefits for law enforcements officers; creates Florida Law Enforcement Recruitment Bonus Payment Program; provides exemption from certain law enforcement officer training requirements for military veterans; provides requirements for skills training for law enforcement officers relating to officer health &…
The measure became Chapter 2022-23 on April 5, 2022.
The measure directly governs crime prevention, criminal offenses, law-enforcement practice, sentencing, supervision, emergency response, or correctional policy represented in the card's reported-crime and correctional context. It does not establish an effect on the displayed crime rate or correctional populations.
Retained Florida evidence context: Reported violent-crime rate. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Law Enforcement ; Authorizes a sheriff to transfer funds between specified categories and code levels after his or her budget is approved; revises salary minimums for county sheriffs; provides for adoption benefits for law enforcements officers; creates Florida Law Enforcement Recruitment Bonus…Review official supporting evidence ↗
U.S. senator for Florida · R–FL
3 proposalsFeb 26, 2026 · Introduced
Sen. Rick Scott · Sponsored
This measure would provide authority and discretion to the President over budgetary resources to achieve a balanced budget.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget.
The federal measure directly addresses Social Security benefits, beneficiary administration, the retirement earnings test, trust-fund financing, program sustainability, or scams targeting beneficiaries. It does not establish an effect on Florida's beneficiary count.
Retained Florida evidence context: Social Security beneficiaries. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
Definitions In this section— (1) the term budgetary resources— (A) has the meaning given that term in section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)); and (B) includes any discretionary appropriations or direct spending, as defined in such section, available for the applicable fiscal year; (2) the term covered budgetary resources means any budgetary resources, except for budgetary resources to carry out— (A) the Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social…Review official supporting evidence ↗
Jan 15, 2026 · Introduced
Sen. Rick Scott · Sponsored
This measure would provide for continuing appropriations for certain employees and contractors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the event of a Government shutdown.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The federal measure directly addresses immigration status, asylum, removal, detention, border enforcement, unauthorized residents' eligibility, or immigration-enforcement practice. It does not update or establish an effect on the displayed Florida population estimate.
Retained Florida evidence context: Estimated unauthorized immigrant population. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
provide for continuing appropriations for certain employees and contractors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the event of a Government shutdownReview official supporting evidence ↗
Jan 8, 2025 · Introduced
Sen. Rick Scott · Sponsored
Protect Our Seniors Act This bill establishes Senate budget enforcement procedures (known as points of order) against measures that (1) reduce Medicare or Social Security benefits, or (2) use revenue or savings from the Medicare program to offset the cost of provisions unrelated to carrying out Medicare. Points of order are prohibitions against certain categories of legislation or congressional action. A point of order raised on the grounds established under the bill may be waived or suspended only by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senators.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
The federal measure directly addresses Social Security benefits, beneficiary administration, the retirement earnings test, trust-fund financing, program sustainability, or scams targeting beneficiaries. It does not establish an effect on Florida's beneficiary count.
Retained Florida evidence context: Social Security beneficiaries. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.
This bill establishes Senate budget enforcement procedures (known as points of order) against measures that (1) reduce Medicare or Social Security benefits, or (2) use revenue or savings from the Medicare program to offset the cost of provisions unrelated to carrying out Medicare.Review official supporting evidence ↗
Only current Florida officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.
Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Florida statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 2, 2026.