Why the Smart Money Rejects Federal Funds for Medicaid Expansion

Big government types constantly insist that states that refuse the federal funding associated with Obamacare's Medicaid expansion are neglecting the poor residents of their states leaving them with no health insurance.

The following paragraph from a recent New Republic story demonstrates the extent of the demagoguery:

But the state officials who have blocked expansion aren’t simply depriving some people of health insurance. They are depriving the entire state of federal funds. Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government picks up 100 percent of the expansion cost for the first three years, then scales back its support to 90 percent.  At that point, states will have to find the money to cover that remaining 10 percent. It’s real money. But it’s tiny compared to what they get in return. The federal money goes is a huge influx of cash, which goes first to providers and suppliers of health care. That money, in turn, generates additional economic activity. 

Notice how responsible legislators are depicted as depriving people of insurance! But it is worse than that; they are depriving the entire state of much needed money provided by the benevolent federal government. These funds will, of course, stimulate the states' economy. It's the same old, tired liberal playbook!

First of all, the individual states are under no obligation to follow unconstitutional dictates from Washington, D.C. Obamacare is unconstitutional! The federal government does not have the power to dictate to the American people how or if they buy a product. Period! The only reason it passed was due to countless lies told to the American people by Obama and the Democrats. The law will be repealed and the states that refused to get in bed with the federal government will be much better off financially. 

Secondly, the claim that federal dollars redirected to the states serves to stimulate the economy has been roundly discredited. If this actually worked, The Great Depression would have ushered in a 25-year boom like the Reagan years did and the hundreds of billions of dollars in Obama's Stimulus Bill would have pulled the economy out of The Obama Recession.

The New Republic continued:

Conservatives like to point out that the federal dollars don’t materialize out of thin air—they come from the federal treasury. That’s true. But there’s a net transfer of money here, from the very rich (who pay higher taxes under the health care law) to the poor and middle class (who get either Medicaid or tax credits for buying private insurance). That’s perfectly consistent with a program that fosters growth, particularly at a time of low demand, since it’s taking money from rich people (who might otherwise save it) and puts it right back into the economy.

The level of economic ignorance on display in this paragraph is remarkable. Rather than addressing the root cause of the problem, looking at the big pictures and considering some alternative, free-market solutions, they rely on the same shallow class warfare, Robin Hood "take from the rich, give to the poor" redistribution of wealth rhetoric that they have been spewing for 100 years.

The bottom line with liberals and progressive is their answer to every problem is a bigger centralized government and/or more government spending. They never look at the results of their previously failed policies such as the War on Poverty, bankrupt liberal programs such as Medicaid, and Medicare, and Social Security. They never acknowledge that the problems with the healthcare system prior to Obamacare were almost all due to government interference with the free-market.

They never acknowledge that discouraging "rich people" from saving and investing and replacing it with "taking money from rich people" is detrimental to the economy. Saving and investing equates to buying, building, expanding, and hiring. In other words, a growing economy! Taking that money and "giving" it to the poor provides disincentives for all of these activities. In other words, a perpetual recession, with lower wages, lower median incomes, low labor force participation rates, and high unemployment. You get the picture. 

But I guess if you write for the New Republic, you are always preaching to the choir. The strength and validity of your argument will always go unchallenged as long as you are attacking small government constitutionalists.


http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120049/obamacare-medicaid-expansion-economic-cost-states-saying-no

100% Failure Rate - Part III

Back in 2009, I published my first blog proving 100% failure rate of the federal government. In it I highlighted such things as:

• Social Security
• The United States Post Office
• Amtrak
• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
• The War on Poverty
• The Stimulus Bill
• Cash for Clunkers

In 2010, I published 100% Failure Rate - Part II which highlighted the latest news about the insolvency of Social Security. 

Now, with almost six years of the Obama Administration under our belt, I thought it was time to update the federal governments absolutely heinous record of doing anything right. How about these?

• Veteran's Affairs
• Obamacare
• The Secret Service
• Fast and Furious
• The Ebola outbreak
• ISIS
• Benghazi
• The economy
• The national debt
• The IRS scandal
• Welfare
• The Obamacare website
• Enforcing our borders

Much, much more is outlined in my book, Pritical Thinking-The Lost Art of Critical Thinking and Common Sense in Politics and Public Policy.

Question for Eric Schmidt

Eric Schmidt, Google's Chairman, had this to say yesterday: 

“Everyone understands climate change is occurring and the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people—they’re just, they’re just literally lying.”

Dear Mr. Schmidt,

NO ONE DENIES THAT CLIMATE CHANGE IS OCCURRING. One need only be a observer of nature to know that the climate does, indeed, change! For example, we have these things called seasons - Summer, Fall, Winter, and Spring. 

With that cleared up, why don't you articulate to all of us liars and deniers your economy-killing solutions to stop nature from "changing"? Please explain what your nature-altering solutions will do to the standard of living of our "children and our grandchildren" and how your solutions will actually make "the world a much worse place".

State Sucession

Short of a Convention of the States that institutes real reform and real limitations on the federal government's power, secession is the only other recourse we, the people, have from the overreaching federal, now national, government.

The findings of this Reuters/Ipsos poll are not surprising. The growth of Washington's power and wealth is easy to see. It grows regardless of which party is in power. We sit breathlessly each June waiting to hear what 9 lawyers deem constitutional. We allow 20% of our economy to be turned over to the feds despite the fact that socialized medicine produces worse results than our current system. Our national debt is approaching $18 trillion. Bush was "irresponsible and unpatriotic" for taking it from $5 trillion to $9 trillion. Our education system is a disaster. The list of federal failures and corruption is as long as the list of federal agencies: Postal Service, Fannie Mae, Social Security,  Medicare, Medicaid, Freddie Mac, Amtrak, Veteran's Affairs, the IRS, Obamacare, etc.

BEFORE A STATE CAN SERIOUSLY CONSIDER SECESSION, IT MUST WEAN ITSELF FROM DEPENDENCE ON THE FUNDS IT RECEIVES FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and, of course, its citizens must wake up and demand change. Until then, we will get more of the same and worse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/19/us-usa-secession-exclusive-idUSKBN0HE19U20140919

How the Liberal Mind Works: Divide, Disparage, and Maintain Dependency on Government

In an op-ed in the Buffalo News, New York Assemblyman Karim Camar was able to demonstrate the destructiveness of the theology of liberalism better in 750 words than Alan Colmes could on one of his three-hour daily radio shows.

Quote: "The major accomplishments of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 are being dismantled today by a dangerous and growing trend of income and wage inequalities."

A Pritical Thinker might pose the questions - What the hell is income and wage inequality? Does that mean it is wrong for some people to make more than others? Should everyone make the same amount of money Mr. Camar?

Perhaps some people make more money because they are deemed more valuable to employers than others due to their education, training, and experience. This may also occur, Mr. Camar, when individuals risk their own money and start businesses, work an ungodly number of hours each week (many times at low or no pay) in order to reap the potential benefits someday if their business is successful. All the while we have an embarrassingly large segment of our citizens being encouraged by the government to sit on their asses for years on end taking money from them with no expectation being set that the benefits are temporary.

Quote: "Aug. 31 marked 50 years since the federal government passed the Food Stamp Act, which established a national food assistance program. Today, the food stamp (SNAP) program is caught up in a political chess game that leaves millions of families to survive on about $70 per week. In a nation where soup kitchens now abound, where food pantries run near empty and where millions of our children rely on school meals, it is clear that this decades-old War on Poverty must be renewed with diligence and conviction."

A Pritical Thinker might ask Mr. Camar, what political chess match are you referring to? The one where the food stamp program has doubled since Barack Obama took office? I'd think you would call that CHECKMATE!

A Pritical Thinker would never allow Mr. Camar to make unsubstantiated claims about the abounding soup kitchens and empty food pantries without requiring some evidence.

Finally, how do you explain the fact that we have pumped some $20 trillion into the War on Poverty and poverty continues to stay the same or grow yet you want to renew the FAILED "decades-old War on Poverty". You sir must be insane because, what you are advocating for is the very definition of insanity.

Quote: "Recently, the International Monetary Fund documented that the richest 100 people on earth have as much wealth as 3.5 billion fellow human beings."

A Pritical Thinker knows that hustlers like Mr. Camar must perpetuate division among the people. Race and income are low-hanging fruit and easy to put forth. The question AGAIN for Mr. Camar, should these 100 richest people divide their wealth among the masses? Do you think that these "rich" people employee the rest of us who make their meals, manufacture their cars, build their houses, work at their businesses?

The shallowness of this type of thinking is truly breathtaking.