Speaker Taylor Barras transmitted
a letter to Edwards outlining GOP caucus demands attached to any
revenue-raising package. They include enhanced spending transparency, a change in
the expenditure limit calculations, and patient responsibility and work or
other requirements for able-bodied adult Medicaid recipients not pregnant,
exempting parents of newborns or children with disabilities and people in drug
or alcohol rehabilitation programs.
The easier dissemination of expenditures would
build upon efforts begun under former Gov. Bobby
Jindal, something Edwards should not contest. As for the other issues,
expect obfuscation and counterattacks because the realization of Republicans’
goals would separate Edwards too much from his desire to lock in inflated state
government.
The current expenditure limit essentially is
meaningless, as the Constitution
builds it upon past appropriations plus a growth factor based upon personal
income averages. As appropriations reflect revenues (of state-generated money
minus transfers, higher education fees and tuition, and parish severance tax
and royalty distribution), the current level of over $14.6
billion rests hundreds of million of dollars lower, principally because,
even as state
spending from its own sources hit record levels under Edwards, the substitution
of self-generated funds for taxpayer dollars to fund higher education ensures
the not breaching the existing limit for some time.
The proposal, if adopted, would slow the growth
rate, principally because it would mix in population growth that has not moved
much over recent years. In some years it could come up zero, since it also
would factor in state-sourced revenue growth. Throwing in a Consumer Price Index
average might work to move the limit higher, but, overall, the revamped factors
would cause slower growth. This Edwards will fight bitterly, as it reins in his
goal of government expansion.
As for the Medicaid changes, he will try to
finesse his way around these, much as he did with similar requirements for
people receiving food stamps where he continued these by placing qualifications
on recipients basically
no more onerous than showing the ability to fog a mirror. For example, he would
have the Department of Health write regulations that makes almost any emergency
room trip considered necessary in order to avoid a co-payment, as Republicans
want to charge that for visits deemed unnecessary.
Edwards’ goal here is to limit the amount of money
Medicaid users pay in. Every additional self-generated dollar means one fewer
dollar of permanent tax increases necessary, which can lock in bigger
government that controls more and more people’s lives, with expanded ability to
redistribute resources to buy voter support and give the political left a
greater chance of seizing and maintaining power.
Already, Edwards has gone into stall mode on this,
with his first tactic a declaration that he must study the “costs” to implement
these changes. That politically-driven determination is bogus: nine months ago
his administration opposed Medicaid work requirements because of alleged administrative
costs and issues, but as the issue has gained traction, he
reversed course and now claims to have worked on the matter for some time.
Likely he will do as he did with food stamps, adopting a cooptation strategy that
intends to issue nearly toothless regulations and then hunker down to resist
adjustments in law to make those actually meaningful.
Republicans here must stay firm linking the limit
change and Medicaid requirements to any tax increases, which, if any, should be
temporary sales tax hikes. A rapidly advancing budget, driven by Medicaid costs
now almost half of it and threatened to squeeze out other important priorities
gives them the leverage to ask those privileged with Medicaid to pay their fair
share and to place a more realistic cap on all spending. They must ask for significant
concessions on these.
Edwards will try to break out of the shrinking box
the House GOP instructions represent. The good of the state necessitates that
he does not.
No comments:
Post a Comment