Lets cut Medicade

This week the governors came out against the proposal by President Bush to cut $40 billion from the budget for Medicaid. That program pays for health care for the poor and disabled and is funded jointly by the Federal and state governments. Therefore, when the Federal Government cuts funding to the states those cuts must be made up by the states.

If President Bush is successful in cutting the funding to states for Medicaid, the states will then begin looking within their budgets to see what monies can be rearranged to pay for the reduced funding. One tactic which states have used is to shift monies from public education which is one of the largest state expenditures. If the states choose to make up the federal funding loss in Medicaid by shifting expenditures, the problem rolls one further step down hill to local school districts. At this point the funding problem has no where else to go and local taxes go up.

The bottom line is taxes, whether they are federal state or local can only come from the taxpayers. Shifting the problem is not solving the problem. We need to take an honest look at our social and non-social needs and then come up with the funding necessary to pay the bill.

The way we have been acting, is similar to a person who needs to buy a gallon of milk for their family. They shop around and find the best price is $3.00 and they go to purchase the milk. Our hypothetical person has only $2.50 and the store manager explains the milk is $3.00. The person pays $2.50 in cash and charges the other $.50 to their credit card. This goes on day after day, week after week, year after year until the day when the hypothetical taxpayer discovers he can't pay his credit card bill. At this point they throw up their hands and declare bankruptcy.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

This explains it, in a nutshell. Dubya thinks that if he cuts the budget, people won't notice that the problems just gets shifted down to the state level. It's not like those who need medicaid or other social services just go away. Now, the states must raise taxes. This way, dubya can say, "But, I lowered taxes. I'm the good guy." All he did was succeed in taking the money out of your back pocket.

I work for the federal government, and let me tell you, it's not a business. It cannot be run like a business, as it is not a profit-oriented establishment. It's a services establishment. All this downsizing of government (which is really an illusion, anyway) only results in less people to do the same amount of work. Then people complain because they're not getting the services they need fast enough. But, for cryin' out loud, we can only do what we can do in an eight hour day. Doing more with less is nonsense. You can only do less with less. The feds cut the budgets and the consumers of government services get shafted.

Fucking neocons.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Thanks for your c omments. I spent the last 12 years of my career running the business affairs of the third largest school district in PA. I saw this process and the increase in local taxes because of cuts at the state level. I also worked in the for profit sector as an officer in a bank and as the owner of two small businesses. There are differences between for profit and not for profit operations. However, we need to use the examples of effecient operations in the for profit sector to improve the government. Tax payers should get the most for their tax dollers and the people being served deserve the best service possible.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The answer is still not higher taxes.

Look at your own hypothetical math again. You seem to be somewhat like Greenspan, who complains about inflation then goes out and raises rates which CAUSE INFLATION.

If you raise taxes, you raise prices to pay for the raised costs (taxes).

The answer may or may not be to shift costs over to states. I'm not necessarily a fan of making states bear the costs, but then again, until states stop paying for illegal (call them undocumented if you must) aliens, why should I be asked to pay more? Illegal aliens come in and go to school at lower tuition rates than I can send my son to school on. They drive, they take health care services, etc. Most are "undocumented" and pay little or nothing into the social security or tax system as they take wages "under the table". That problem must be fixed.

Meanwhile, states and the federal government need to be responsible for minimal -- not maximum -- levels of care. We can't have the federal government or states paying for Viagra, Cosmetic Surgery, and and other non-necessity services. There's not enough money, no matter how much you raise taxes.

Finally, again, it's been proven time and again, raises in taxes do not equal raises in revenue. We need more revenue, and taking money out of the system in the form of taxes will not fix the problem. Unless of course you want to take the money from ranting old COLs. If you want to do that, that's fine, I'll support you 100%.

Successfully updated karma reason!

The ecoinomic results of the 1990's clearly show that tax rates on the wealthy can be restored to the pre 2001 levels without creating negative results. That would go a long way to help balance the budget. The deficit is so great that there is no acceptable (to the vast majority) cuts that will balance the budget. That is reality!

Successfully updated karma reason!

The ecoinomic results of the 1990's clearly show that tax rates on the wealthy can be restored to the pre 2001 levels without creating negative results.

You've said it time and again, but I'd like to know where your proof is? Just because you think the 90's were so great doesn't mean that current times can support those rates without negative impact.

Hell, there are plenty of people that would say that the 50s, 60s, 70s and even 80s were great.

Which is the best? Kennedy cut rates in the 60s. They went back up later. Reagan cut in the 80s, they went up later, and then were brought down again later.

Each time tax rates were lowered, revenues went up. Show me where that has not been the case, then I might belief your continued crying for higher taxes.

Until then, the only person I want to pay more taxes is someone that demands them again and again on others. Well, that, and perhaps some onerous taxes on Streisand, Soros and Michael Moore.

Otherwise you're reality has no basis in proof. Higher taxes during a period of growth that didn't even really exist -- witness Enron, WorldCom, Sprint, and a load of bogus internet economy companies that weren't making the money they claimed to be is proof of nothing. Were the revenues higher then than now? Were revenues as a percentage of GDP higher then than now?

For someone that is supposed to be educated, you continue to show a poor understanding of the complexities of the economy as a whole. You're cry -- like that of the liberals for as long as I can remember -- is always TAX the rich. Soak the rich. Blah, blah.

I've proven it before, luxury taxes passed under Pres. George H.W. Bush did nothing they were intended to do. Revenues WENT DOWN. You might argue that the economy went into recession, and that was the reason, but the increased revenue just didn't appear. Taxes on luxury items caused sales of said luxury items to drop, tax revenue dropped because people weren't buying and selling those items, and the soak the rich crowd found that they had just created a larger burden for the middle and lower classes.

And cry as you might about the deficit, you really might want to examine it as compared to historical numbers. Are the defictis more as a percentage of GDP than they were during prior periods, or are they in line with where they've always been?

Successfully updated karma reason!

The top 5% did better in the 1990's than any other group. More millionairs were created in the 1990's than in any other period. The harm that will be done to all economic classes from the continued increases in the debt will create more harm than any tax cut to the top 5% of the population. I have looked at what makes up the budget and to cut $500 billion in spending would create hardship on most Americans. All non-defense discretionary spending equals $487 billion. All defense spending will be about $500 billion when you add in the cost of the Iraq War (which Bush cleverly ignores). Most of the federal budget is either interest on the debt or mandatory items. I would like people who say balance the budget by cutting show exactly what and by how much they would cut to generate $500 Billion every year. Even with a cut of $500 billion, we still would not be able to begin repaying the $7.6 Trillion natioinal debt. If we do not paydown the debt, the billions each year in interest never ends. Just think of what could have been done with the $6.5 Trillion we have paid in interest since 1980?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Dubya thinks that if he cuts the budget, people won't notice that the problems just gets shifted down to the state level.

Well, I didn't think this day would come, but I have to peg you with an "insightful", dabe. It's what I call "tax SHIFTING", and it's at the core of virtually every tax cut by politicians of either party.

I'll give you another one: farm subsidy cuts. Bush was elected by heartland states that depend on those subsidies (while I don't agree with them on principle, abandoning them will likely cause a very serious bout of inflation). He put the subsidy cuts in his proposed budget KNOWING that "red" states have "red" legislatures, and these subsidies won't stand up in the final budget. Again, he gets to tell everyone he's the good guy by cutting taxes (and letting Republican senators take the heat; knowing the "heat" they take in California won't affect their reelection in their HOME districts, where subsidies are favored).

It's clever politicking, I'll give him that.

Successfully updated karma reason!

drmiler

Here are some data from BLS . They responded to my E-mail and directed me to data on their website. Just a couple of items to confirm the job growth has not kept pace with population growth;

The number of Discouraged workers has doubled since 2001. They are not counted in the unemployment rate.

Pepple employed in Jan 2001 was lamost 138 million. Toyal employed jan 2004, 138.5 million with 5 million more workers.

Unemployment rate in Dec 2000 3.9%; Rate Dec 2004 is 5.4%

Below is the Eomail I received.

Good afternoon,
Thank you for contacting us with this question. You can access unemployment data in both rates and numbers from our website by starting at www.bls.gov.

Click "National Unemployment Rate" under "Employment & Unemployment"
Click Get Detailed CPS Statistics"
Click "Most Requested Statistics
Make the appropriate selections i.e. "Employment Level - Civilian Labor Force - LNS12000000" & "Unemployment Rate - Civilian Labor Force - LNS14000000 " (and any others in the list) to compare employment versus unemployment.
Click "Retrieve Data"
This will provide data for the last 10 years by default. For more information on this data, contact the National Labor Force Statistics program office at 202-691-6378, or by email at [email protected].

Please contact us again with questions regarding wages, prices, employment or productivity at [email protected] or call 202-691-5200.

Sincerely,

Scott Berridge
Economist
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office of Publications and Special Studies
-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 11:23 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Unemployment rate

I am researching data for my book. I would like to understand how the unemployment rate today is about the same as in 2001. As I learned, we have about the same number of jobs as we did in 2001. Can you give me the number of jobs in Jan 2001 and Jan 2005? I have also found that between Jan 2001 and Jan 2005 we have added about 5 million new workers because of population growth. If we have about the same number of jobs as four years ago and 5 million more workers, HOW CAN WE HAVE THE SAME UNEMPLOYMENT RATE?

Thank you,

Gene P. Abel

Successfully updated karma reason!

drmiler

Here are some data from BLS . They responded to my E-mail and directed me to data on their website. Just a couple of items to confirm the job growth has not kept pace with population growth;

The number of Discouraged workers has doubled since 2001. They are not counted in the unemployment rate.

Pepple employed in Jan 2001 was lamost 138 million. Toyal employed jan 2004, 138.5 million with 5 million more workers.

Unemployment rate in Dec 2000 3.9%; Rate Dec 2004 is 5.4%

Below is the Eomail I received.

Good afternoon,
Thank you for contacting us with this question. You can access unemployment data in both rates and numbers from our website by starting at www.bls.gov.

Click "National Unemployment Rate" under "Employment & Unemployment"
Click Get Detailed CPS Statistics"
Click "Most Requested Statistics
Make the appropriate selections i.e. "Employment Level - Civilian Labor Force - LNS12" & "Unemployment Rate - Civilian Labor Force - LNS14 " (and any others in the list) to compare employment versus unemployment.
Click "Retrieve Data"
This will provide data for the last 10 years by default. For more information on this data, contact the National Labor Force Statistics program office at 202-691-6378, or by email at [email protected].

Please contact us again with questions regarding wages, prices, employment or productivity at [email protected] or call 202-691-5200.

Sincerely,

Scott Berridge
Economist
Bureau of Labor Statistics
Office of Publications and Special Studies
-----Original Message-----
From: gene abel [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 11:23 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Unemployment rate

I am researching data for my book. I would like to understand how the unemployment rate today is about the same as in 2001. As I learned, we have about the same number of jobs as we did in 2001. Can you give me the number of jobs in Jan 2001 and Jan 2005? I have also found that between Jan 2001 and Jan 2005 we have added about 5 million new workers because of population growth. If we have about the same number of jobs as four years ago and 5 million more workers, HOW CAN WE HAVE THE SAME UNEMPLOYMENT RATE?

Thank you,

Gene P. Abel

I KNEW you were going to do this. I quote you figures from the U.S. LABOR DEPARTMENT and you refute the data! This boils down to an earlier arguement. No matter what is said we're always wrong and your always right!

Successfully updated karma reason!