Cost-Cutting Medicare Law Is a Money Loser for States -NYT

[Rose Siding]

In passing the new Medicare law, Congress intended to relieve states of prescription drug costs for low-income elderly people. But as states do the arithmetic, many find that they will lose money, because they will have to give back most of the savings to the federal government.

The law opened a new chapter in federal-state relations, requiring the states to pay billions of dollars a year to the federal government for a Medicare benefit over which they have no control.

"This is a sea change in the state-federal relationship," said Trudi L. Matthews, chief health policy analyst at the Council of State Governments, a nonpartisan group that has been tracking trends in federalism for 70 years. "Money generally flows down from Washington to the states, but in this case it's flowing upward, from the states to the federal government."
....
James N. Gardner, a former state senator in Oregon, said: "The federal government has declared unilaterally that the states owe a certain amount in perpetuity to help defray the cost of the Medicare drug benefit. The practical effect is to commandeer state legislatures as revenue-raising agents. That may not be constitutional under the doctrine of federalism, as recently articulated by the Supreme Court and lower federal courts."

http://nytimes.com/2005/03/25/politics/25drug.html?pagewanted=2

[KT2000]

1. when are the governors going to get it?

Bush is never going to do anything FOR anyone except shrub and his contributors. Bait and switch again and again.
All our politicians need to read the fine print before signing on with ANY of shrub's plans. But they are to anxious to get on board and appear grateful for the privilege.