GOP Senator Confronts Planned Medicaid Cut

CNN ^ | 3/17/05 | Alan Fram

[Rodney King]

"Bush's plan to extend certain tax cuts is the main reason for a loss of $1.4 trillion in revenues under his budget plan, the CBO said."

The CBO uses static analysis, they don't allow for tax cuts improving the economy and generating more revenue, which they do.

[NeoCaveman]

As far as the so-called trillions in unfunded liabilities, I believe the old maxim, "Pick your fights" is appropriate. The lives of the poor, the elderly and the disabled have to come first.

Look. We have a structural problem here. Two thirds of the budget is on auto increase and those increases are larger than GDP growth. We'll never get this country's fiscal house in order if we can't even cut 1%. If we can't even do this, we are all doomed to indentured servitude, as these programs demand more and more of our dollars, either through borrowing or increased taxes.

Do you really believe that the program is so efficient that one percent couldn't be cut without hurting the poor, etc?

[Rodney King]

This administration wants to enact tax cuts for dividends and in capital gains taxes, which benefit the wealthiest among us. Yet cut the health program for the poorest among us. Not to see the fundamental error in this logic is unfortunate. Not to see the relationship between the two proposals is tragic.

You simply have no understanding of economics. Time and again it has been demonstrated that tax-cuts increase federal revenues by improving the economy.

[NeoCaveman]

And Medicaid is not two thirds of the budget, that's probably social security.

I said all entitlements are two thirds the budget, not just Medicaid.

Two thirds of the budget (entitlements) are on auto-pilot to increase every year at a faster pace than economic growth. This is a recipe for disaster.

And while people can talk of cutting discretitonary spending or raising taxes, these things just put the fiscal train wreck off a short period of time.

And of course, even this "modest" cut of at least $40 billion (some say $60 billion) if the administrations gets its way, will have devastating effects on states which are already struggling to fund Medicaid. Without reform, I might add.

The states need to be free to reform the Medicaid system in their states.

And the article talks of a 14 billion cut over 5 years. I'm not sure where you are getting 40-60 billion

[NeoCaveman]

Yet under President Bill Clinton, the economy soared, though he increased taxes. Hmmmmm.

Do you like kitties?

[Rodney King]

Yet under President Bill Clinton, the economy soared, though he increased taxes. Hmmmmm.

Yes, and it would have soared even more had he not done so.

[RockinRight]

[RockinRight]

Here's your sign:

Seriously-who here was saying we were supposed to "let people die" as you put it??

[RockinRight]

It grew despite his tax increases.

How does taking more of MY money help the economy??

[RockinRight]

[VRWCmember]

The radical agenda to end Medicaid, health-care for the poor, can't be tolerated. It's evil.

A 1% cut in a bloated entitlement is a "radical agenda to end Medicaid, health-care for the poor"? You might have had a little too much of the green beer today pal.