Facing $1 billion deficit, Arizona sharply limits welfare

BamaPokerplayer said:

http://news.yahoo.com/facing-1-billion-deficit-arizona-sharply-limits-welfare-202816912.html

Click to expand...

Cutting off these benefits after just one year isn't fair, said Jessica Lopez, 23, who gave birth to her son while living in a domestic violence shelter and has struggled to hold onto jobs because she has dyslexia and didn't finish high school. … "We're all human," said Lopez, who got $133 per month for about a year until she qualified for a larger federal disability check. "Everybody has problems. Everybody is different. When people ask for help, we should be able to get it without having to be looked at wrong."

Click to expand...

seebell said:

Have ya'll noticed that the states with Republican governors are in a financial mess with huge money shortfalls. Guess the trickle down ain't kicked in yet?

Let's see. Cut of 4 million out of a billion dollar shortfall and according to the article the entire amount comes from the federal government. Makes sense to me!

Click to expand...

seebell said:

Have ya'll noticed that the states with Republican governors are in a financial mess with huge money shortfalls. Guess the trickle down ain't kicked in yet?

Let's see. Cut of 4 million out of a billion dollar shortfall and according to the article the entire amount comes from the federal government. Makes sense to me!

Click to expand...

seebell said:

Have ya'll noticed that the states with Republican governors are in a financial mess with huge money shortfalls. Guess the trickle down ain't kicked in yet?

Click to expand...

selmaborntidefan said:

This argument assumes every Republican is a conservative or trickle downer. But since you made the ridiculous assertion.....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101345437


The Ten Worst Run States As of January 2014

1) New Jersey - Republican
2) Connecticut - Democrat
3) Illinois - Democrat (until this past Jan 12)
4) Massachusetts - Democrat (until this past Jan)
5) California - Democrat (and don't give me Arnold - the state hasn't has a true Republican since Deukmejian left in the early 90s)
6) New York - Democrat
7) Delaware - Democrat
8) Hawaii - Democrat
9) Pennsylvania - Republican (until earlier this year)
10) West Virginia - Democrat (one GOP governor since 1989)


Now I'm not going to sit here and say this proves X or Y - but you did.

I would point out a lot of them are in the liberal Northeast, too.

I'm just saying.

Click to expand...

Gr8hope said:

Others are in the same or worse condition but they keep digging the hole that will bury them in debt and enslave the taxpayers?

Click to expand...

Gr8hope said:

Have ya'll noticed that the states with Republican governors are facing the fact they are in a financial mess with huge money shortfalls and are trying to do something to stop the bleeding? Others are in the same or worse condition but they keep digging the hole that will bury them in debt and enslave the taxpayers? FIFY

Check out the damage Obamacare is doing by adding millions to Medicaid costs to the States.

Click to expand...

seebell said:

I'll be glad to take a look. Check this out from the Kaiser Commission

http://www.urban.org/sites/default/...sion-National-and-State-by-State-Analysis.PDF


If all states implement the ACA Medicaid expansion, the federal government will fund the vast majority of increased Medicaid costs. The Medicaid expansion and other provisions of the ACA would lead stateMedicaid spending to increase by $76 billion over 2013-2022 (an increase of less than 3%), while federalMedicaid spending would increase by $952 billion (a 26% increase). Some states will reduce their ownMedicaid spending as they transition already covered populations to the ACA expansion. States with thelargest coverage gains will see relatively small increases in their own spending compared to increases infederal funds.If all states implement the expansion, gains in Medicaid coverage would substantially reduce the numberof uninsured. An estimated additional 21.3 million people would enroll in Medicaid by 2022, a 41% increasecompared to projected levels without the ACA. Most enrollees would be newly-eligible, but some would berelated to increased participation among people (primarily children) who are currently eligible. With theMedicaid expansion and other coverage provisions in ACA, the number of uninsured would be cut by 48%compared to without the ACA. However, even without the Medicaid expansion, Medicaid enrollment willincrease due to provisions in the ACA that will lead to increased participation among those currently eligiblefor but not enrolled in Medicaid and CHIP (including children). If no states expand Medicaid, Medicaidenrollment would rise by 5.7 million people, and the number of uninsured would drop by 28%.

The additional state cost of implementing the Medicaid expansion is small relative to total state Medicaid spending. The incremental cost to states of implementing the Medicaid expansion would be $8billion from 2013-2022, representing a 0.3% increase over what they would spend under the ACA withoutthe expansion. The $8 billion includes the state share of costs for both newly eligible adults and theadditional Medicaid participation among currently eligible populations that would result from expansion. Ifall states implemented the Medicaid expansion, federal spending would increase by $800 billion, or 21%,
,compared to the ACA with no states implementing the expansion.

Accounting for factors that reduce costs, states as a whole are likely to see net savings from the Medicaidexpansion. Combining Medicaid costs with a conservative estimate of $18 billion in state and local nonMedicaidsavings on uncompensated care, the Medicaid expansion would save states a total of $10 billionover 2013-2022, compared to the ACA without the expansion. Net state savings are likely to be evengreater because of other state fiscal gains that we could not estimate based on 50-state data.The following provides an overview of the cost and coverage impact of all states implementing the ACA.

http://www.cbpp.org/research/how-health-reforms-medicaid-expansion-will-impact-state-budgets

Claims that states will bear a substantial share of the costs of expanding Medicaid, however, and that the expansion would drain state budgets do not hold up under scrutiny.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Medicaid expansion will add very little to what states would have spent on Medicaid without health reform,

I would say state opposition to Medicaid expansion is mostly ideological.

Click to expand...

Tide1986 said:

So, you believe the federal government will always fund the Medicaid expansion at 90% or greater?

Oh, and your third point regarding net savings sounds just like the $2,500 net savings we were all supposed to see on our insurance premiums.

Promises, promises...

Click to expand...

Tide1986 said:

Oh, you've met Robert Bentley.

Click to expand...

Bama Reb said:

I thought the economy in Alabama was improving, that is until Bentley changed from Republican to Democrat. Ever since then things in this state have gone downhill in a hurry.
Yeah,, I know his changing parties was publicized as an April Fool's joke, but when you look at whats transpired in his administration since then, I'm not so sure it actually was a joke.

Click to expand...

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama House of Representatives passed Tuesday a general fund budget that relies on more than $250 million in cuts, and includes none of the Gov. Bentley’s recommended tax increases.

Click to expand...

The bill will cut Medicaid, Mental Health, DHR, and Corrections by 5 percent and every other agency funded by the general fund by at least 9 percent. With a final tally of 66-36 the vote fell almost exclusively along party lines, with only four Republicans voting against the measure.

“It’s hard to put lipstick on this pig today,” said House General Fund budget chairman Steve Clouse (R-Ozark) after the vote.

The bill, should it make it through the Senate without major changes, is expected to be vetoed by Governor Bentley, who called the plan “unworkable” last week.

A simple majority is all that is required to overturn a veto.

Click to expand...

seebell said:

Have ya'll noticed that the states with Republican governors are in a financial mess with huge money shortfalls. Guess the trickle down ain't kicked in yet?

Let's see. Cut of 4 million out of a billion dollar shortfall and according to the article the entire amount comes from the federal government. Makes sense to me!

Click to expand...

Connecticut faces another $2 billion hole, and the Democrats who rule the legislature have passed a budget with another $1.2 billion tax on the rich and businesses.

Click to expand...

What has infuriated Connecticut taxpayers is that in a state that already has the third-highest state and local taxes in the nation, income taxes are headed up yet again. Doubly infuriating is that Dan Malloy, the liberal Democratic governor, pledged in his re-election campaign last year that "there will not be a tax increase."

Well, never mind.

The seeds of Connecticut's ongoing budget crisis date all the way back to 1991, when then-Gov. Lowell Weicker Jr. introduced the state's first-ever income tax. Liberals applauded this as a new revenue source that would solve Connecticut's budget woes for decades.

But just the opposite happened. Spending soared after the politicians had access to a new cash cow of income tax receipts.

The income tax has been raised five times since the early 1990s, and so a state that once had a zero income tax, and started with a low flat rate of 4.5%, now will have a highest rate of 6.99%.

It also has one of the highest estate taxes, so people with wealth scram to Florida and Texas.

That's not all. The Malloy tax hike also includes the extension of a 20% "temporary" surtax on corporate profits, which will give Connecticut the fifth-highest tax on business in the nation. And the clueless lawmakers in Hartford are scratching their heads asking why businesses are threatening to leave.

The record $40 billion budget cancels even the tiniest cuts in social programs recommended by Malloy, and increases spending for many of the left's favored programs. The only austerity in this budget is imposed on taxpayers.

Click to expand...

Tide1986 said:

Have you noticed what's happening in Connecticut? Emphasis added by me.

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/art...keep_raising_taxes_in_connecticut_101696.html

Click to expand...

Gr8hope said:

Have ya'll noticed that the states with Republican governors are facing the fact they are in a financial mess with huge money shortfalls and are trying to do something to stop the bleeding? Others are in the same or worse condition but they keep digging the hole that will bury them in debt and enslave the taxpayers? FIFY

Check out the damage Obamacare is doing by adding millions to Medicaid costs to the States.

Click to expand...

bamacon said:

There it is right there. Medicaid is by far the biggest expense for every state. It is not even close. It's usually over 1/4 of the budget. I'd say start drug and means testing and shred the fraud. Also require proof of citizenship.

Click to expand...

bamacon said:

There it is right there. Medicaid is by far the biggest expense for every state. It is not even close. It's usually over 1/4 of the budget. I'd say start drug and means testing and shred the fraud. Also require proof of citizenship. Something has to change. These few states that still have Obamacare exchanges will all request a bailout. Hawaii became the latest to ditch theirs. Saying its republican policies is laughable. Seebell, you think these problems started last night? Come on man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

• Citizenship and Identity Information - Effective July 1, 2006, Public Law No. 109-171 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 Section 6036 requires individuals to provide satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality when initially applying for Medicaid or upon a recipient's first Medicaid re-determination.