Conservatives used to be against them:
States are openly resisting a provision of the Medicare law that requires them to pay billions of dollars a year to the federal government to help finance the cost of the new Medicare drug benefit.
Texas is leading the charge against the requirement, which states see as more onerous than the mandates imposed on them by the 2002 education law, the No Child Left Behind Act.
Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, has vetoed a $444 million appropriation covering the Texas contribution for the next two years.
In his veto message and in a letter to other governors, Mr. Perry said he objected to the federal requirement in principle and to the way it was being interpreted by the federal Medicare agency.
“For the first time,” Mr. Perry said, “state governments would be expected to directly finance federal Medicare benefits with state tax dollars. In effect, states will be billed on a monthly basis for the cost of federal services.”
Bush administration officials say the federal Medicare law clearly requires states to make the payments, starting in January. One purpose of the 2003 Medicare law was to relieve states of prescription drug costs for low-income elderly people. But as states do the arithmetic, many have concluded that they will lose money because they must give back most of the savings and will incur new administrative costs.
The Prescription Drug Plan gets better and better with every news story. I say we blame the media.
Shawn
John, don’t keep trying to blame the media. Silly! it’s obviously Clinton’s fault and those latte drinking, volvo driving Liberals.
Rick
Conservatives are still against unfunded mandates, and other “free lunch” schemes. Guess this shows there not much “conservative” or “right wing” about the administration, and congressional Republicans.
The odd thing is, the behavior against “type” doesn’t earn them the Strange New Respect accorded to, say, McCain or Christopher Shays.
Cordially…
J. Michael Neal
I don’t have a whole lot of respect for Shays. As for McCain, what dmiration I do have exists not because I agree with him on policy matters; for the most part, I don’t. It’s due to the fact that I think that he has principles and sticks by them. This respect is draining, however, as he demonstrates that he stands by his principles only so long as it involves talk, but that when it comes time to vote, he abandons them to stick with the administration.
In this case, the administration isn’t standing by any recognizable principles, and it’s pushing really bad policy. Rick is under the misapprehension that, as a liberal, I like spending for spending’s sake, rather than to try to accomplish something worthwhile.
Rick
My “misapprehension” is the result of years and years of apprehending liberal policies, which basically amount to anything for which a plausible claim for funding can be made, then overfunding is even better. Worthwhile accomplishments take the hindmost.
Cordially…
Jess
Rick,
Are you against liberals or against fiscal irresponsibility? It seems clear to me after the last four presidents that the two are not automatically linked.
Rick
I don’t see it as either/or. Hypocrisy being the tribute vice pays to virtue, I hold the GOP Presidents (since maybe Coolidge) to be hypocrites, but at least bowing to the virtue of limited government.
The liberals/Democrats are free of the hypocrisy, because they tend to view limited government as a vice.
Cordially…
Jess
Well, I think there are a range of positions on how limited the government should be on both side of the spectrum. Policing the private lives of citizens is definitely (but not exclusively) one of the hallmarks of the right, for example. I’m still attracted to the libertarian view, but my real-world experiences have taught me that the natural course of things without government intervention is for the gap between the powerful and the powerless to widen, leading to extreme destabilization and disenfranchisement. Intelligently run social programs can keep a society more vital, cohesive, and truly competitive by providing relatively equal opportunities to all. There’s no need to automatically reject them all (although corporate subsidies might be a good one to reconsider). Of course, I’m not an economist, so I’m open to what others have to say on the subject. My views are based on living in several different countries, and seeing a variety of approaches to the problem and their consequences.
Bob
Rick, limited government? Bend over, it’s the Justice Department calling.
Or maybe you meant “limiting government,” as in a government limiting your civil liberties?
This latest incarnation of the Republican Party is the most intrusive government ever. These are the spawn of the Dulleses, the bankers for the Nazis, those rich with a taste for jackboots.
Rick, you’re a fool. Calvin Coolidge has morphed into something monstrous.
Jess
Now now, Bob–no one listens to the person calling them a fool. And futhermore, there’s plenty of foolishness to go around–we’ve all drunk from that cup.
Mike
Oh yeah, blame the media instead of blaming the Republicans who passed the Medicare bill through Congress or pres bush who signed it. Nice going…..coward
Rick
Bob,
Thanks, but I’ve read some of your thumb-sucker comments before about this and that fascist/Nazi nexus.
I meet your declaration of my foolishness with an enormous amount of relief.
Cordially…
Sojourner
Talk nice.
Cordially…