You healthcare lobbyists should have written a law without loopholes to begin with.
I am curious as to what is the net effect of revenue matching laws. It seems to me that revenue match for a particular program that bypasses the state’s general coffers might achieve the supposed result of more program funding, but considering how it is normally done, I think it is simply a transfer of deficit raised federal dollars to state general revenues.
We have so many revenue matching programs. I assume that Highway funding is the largest one, followed by Medicaid. Or perhaps vice versa. I believe that in TX all fed revenues into both are used however the Lege desires.
Should a federal/state joint venture like highway construction even have a feature like “revenue matching”? What purpose does it actually serve? Assume with me that interstate highways are basically federal responsibilities. Nevertheless, the R.O.W. impacts are all local, and state and local input are critical to managing the minimum damage to a community. So cooperation is a legitimate goal, but does revenue matching have anything to do with that? Is it possible states or localities were blackmailed into supporting the interstate system financially, or else the feds would have drawn the roadway to kill commerce in a town?
The article calls the gaming of Medicaid by the states “waste”. But it seems to me the structure was established as a “game”. If you see revenue matching as other than an invitation to increase the federal deficit in order to permit states to have the pleasure of spending money they did not have the pain of raising, explain it to me.
Filed under: Open Thread | 9 Comments »


