So is total and complete non cooperation by Republican state governments, which is necessary for most federal initiatives. It’s essential, actually, since it’s a way to hide the true cost of programs. Only the most popular programs can be entirely federally funded, like SS and Medicare. One reason Medicaid and welfare are state-federal partnerships is because the public would have a cow if they knew the actual annual cost at all levels of those programs. And I don’t care what demographic trends state, if the public is mad at the cost of government, guess who wins? So true costs must always be hidden.
Okay, so it becomes like Medicaid expansion. Intransigent red states keep sending their income taxes to DC to pay for the federal share of various programs but don’t receive their share. It sucks for the poor people in those states, but I wouldn’t mind seeing those people move to blue states anyway.
Why is that?
Because it would be better for them, and would increase the House and Electoral College strength of blue states.
And yes, I’m well aware that the average blue state is a net donor state while the average red state is the opposite. But we were talking about what would change based on refusal to participate in Medicaid. In my state of Missouri, Democrats and centrist or even center-right healthcare industry lobbyists have joined together to campaign to get Medicaid expansion. The right wing, rapidly anti Obama legislature is refusing to budge, despite arguments that we are foolishly letting our tax dollars go to Washington DC but refusing to take them back for this program, thereby hurting hospitals, doctors, and the surrounding economies, as well as of course the working poor who would directly benefit. Do you dispute that this is true? It may well be that we still are getting more in benefits than our taxpayers pay out, but that disparity would be even more in our favor if we didn’t stubbornly hold out on Medicaid expansion. Right?
Problem is, Missouri would have to raise taxes to cover their side of Medicaid expansion. I’m not sure of the appeal of the argument that “The government’s taking billions from us for nothing! Let’s spend a few more billion and get something!”
Every dollar they would spend would be matched by nine dollars from the federal government (which represents, in part, as I said, money collected from Missouri taxpayers). Add in the economic multiplier effect and it’s a no-brainer as you should surely know. Even if the welfare of the state’s economy and its citizens is of no concern of the legislature (which is a bizarre idea) they would almost certainly collect enough in increased tax revenue (thanks to all those medical salaries and sales taxes generated through the multiplier effect) to more than offset that measly ten percent they have to pony up.