State governors to meet with Obama, Boehner on "fiscal cliff"

Comments (5)
Stickystones wrote:

The states need to raise their tax rates and spending to offset the federal grants. This has been part of the problem for many years and the President’s proposals only make it worse. The federal government is much less efficient than most state governments and the feds tell the states where and how they can spend their money. The federal government know no bounds to expansion and doesn’t balance the budget, states must balance their budgets ultimately and are more responsive to their citizens. The framers of this country consciously made a decision to limit the federal powers in order to diffuse power from a central entity. Their fears have been realized now 200+ years later by the resurgence of Federalism. As the adage states ‘those who forget history are doomed to repeat it’. Most people don’t even realize the US is a Republic and why we have a electoral college – it’s all about state rights because the people who established this country so feared a central government without checks and balances.

Dec 04, 2012 9:05am EST  --  Report as abuse
M.C.McBride wrote:

Employment matters more than the deficit. Income stability also matters more than the deficit to the long term prosperity of the nation. Create and save some jobs, please, Washington politicians.

Dec 04, 2012 10:00am EST  --  Report as abuse
flashrooster wrote:

Stickystones: The problem with what you’re suggesting is that it’s the poorest states, mostly the southern states, that get the most from the feds. Those states would have to raise an awful lot of taxes to make up for the lack of federal assistance, and they just don’t have the wealth. Income disparity is even greater in those states than elsewhere. (In fact, if the Republicans have their way, the south represents the future of our entire country.) And if you raise taxes too much, depending on whom you raise them on, the poor grow poorer (and often that’s not possible) and the rich move out of state. It’s much simpler for a wealthy person to move to another state than another country. Where else can the get away without paying taxes, have the security they have here in the US, and be able to control the government?

Dec 04, 2012 12:25pm EST  --  Report as abuse
SeniorMoment wrote:

One way to lower grants to the states is to give all states the same grant percentage. The minimum federal share of Medicaid for example is 50%, but it went up to 74.18% in 2012, not including the 100% federal match for the coming expansion of Medicaid. What is wrong about that is the states whose voters complain the most about federal spending are actually the biggest beneficiaries of that spending, which is unfair.

Dec 06, 2012 5:32am EST  --  Report as abuse
SeniorMoment wrote:

My comment about the federal share of Medicaid being a minimum of 50% but in some states as much as 74.18% in FY 2012 needs clarification. Poorer states receive a the higher percentage match, yet by and large those same states are Tea Party strongholds where the voters have been mislead about the federal-state relationship into often thinking they don’t need the federal government when in fact they are the most dependent on it.

Dec 06, 2012 5:40am EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.