Letter Submission

To submit a letter to the editor, please email us at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Letters must contain the author's name, hometown (state as well, if not in New Hampshire) and phone number, but the number will not be published. We do not run anonymous letters. Local issues get priority, as do local writers. We encourage writers to keep letters to no more than 400 words, but will accept longer letters to be run on a space-available basis. Letters may be edited for spelling, grammar, punctuation and legal concerns.

 

States that didn't expand Medicaid have more economic freedom

To The Daily Sun,

The media assumption is that states refusing to expand Medicaid are doing so for purely political reasons. Progressives indulge in name calling against all who oppose Medicaid expansion, calling them fiscally foolhardy and heartless. They argue for Medicaid expansion claiming both it means economic benefits and disproportionate federal funding for state residents without raising taxes ... which sounds great ... but are the claims true?

Researching the matter shows the progressive explanations do not hold water. The evidence indicates expansion states are eager to spend not only their own residents' money but money from other states' taxpayers as well. States that expanded Medicaid tend to have per capita state spending about 17 percent higher than non-expansion states. Common sense should tell us; everyone can't get more money back from the District of Columbia than we send there.

What we have is another situation like the state retirement system ... and we are still trying to dig out from under that mess. It has made New Hampshire's retirement system a comparison in discussions about Detroit ... all in the name of expecting something for nothing. It seems the Legislature and the governor learned nothing from that gaff. Spending money based on optimistic prognostications and then recovering later hamstrings the economy, limits the states options and raises taxes.

The Kaiser Family Foundation released a report in September comparing Medicaid expansion states with those that did not expand. The report was largely unreported locally ... but it t should have created a stir. The report illustrates why many states turned down free federal Medicaid funds. Reduced federal funding over time and expanded enrollment tell us that the results were foreseeable.

The non-expansion states have a higher degree of economic freedom than expansion states. States declining to expand Medicaid tend to be fiscally conservative, with lower taxes and lower spending. In 2004, expansion states had median per capita state and local tax collections of 19 percent more than non-expansion states. By 2012, this gap had widened with expansion states collecting 28 percent more taxes per capita than non-expansion states. Since 2008, expansion states have increased taxes, while non-expansion states have reduced taxes slightly.

The Kaiser report also looked at "taxing capacity," which basically measures whether states are taxing their citizens as much as is possible. It's a function of both income and tax rates. In 2004 expansion states and non-expansion states were taxing at nearly equal levels when comparing their so-called taxing capacity. By 2012, expansion states boosted collections as a percent of taxing capacity by 17 percent compared to non-expansion states.

States that expanded Medicaid tend to be slightly richer, on average, than non-expansion states. But the gap is narrowing, due to state fiscal policies which run counter to economic growth. In 2001 expansion states had real median incomes that were nearly 13 percent higher than non-expansion states. By 2013 this gap narrowed to just over 9 percent. Historically, expansion states had slightly lower poverty rates, but this gap also narrowed to 1 percent by 2012.

Non-expansion states, although slightly poorer, have lower unemployment than expansion states. That should not come as a surprise. It's the result of greater economic freedom. Expansion states tend to have more workers in the health care sector; about 30 percent more. This was true long before the ACA. Annual health care employment growth in both expansion and non-expansion states was about the same from 2008 to 2013. Historically, from 2000 to 2013, health sector employment growth was actually higher in non-expansion states.

Expansion states were historically richer, but that is changing due to their lack of fiscal responsibility. They have less economic freedom, tax their residents more and spend more of their taxpayers' money. The moral of the story is when we vote ourselves more goodies from the public coffer ... taxes go up, freedom goes down and people and companies move away.

Marc Abear

Meredith

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 271

Bernie has been fighting for the poor and middle class for 30 years

To The Daily Sun,

Senator Bernie Sanders is the best candidate for President of the United States.

There are many reasons for this opinion. One of the most important is his record of taking on problems facing the middle class and the poor. For 30 years, Sanders has fought for reforms such as: universal health care, free tuition at public colleges/universities, and fair trade that protects workers, the environment and American jobs. He wants to strengthen the social safety net that provides vital help for working class Americans who: cannot afford child care, have no doctor and face losing their jobs if they need to stay at home to care for a sick child or a newborn baby. Sanders has fought for these things because he believes it is right and moral to do so. Fighting for these issues makes him "...a democratic socialist," not a communist.
Sanders also has called for the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes. He wants to end tax loopholes for corporations that ship jobs overseas. He has called for raising income taxes for the rich to 50 percent. To Bernie, the top 1 percent should not be allowed to stash their wealth overseas to avoid paying taxes here. He proposes a Wall Street transaction tax to fund free public college for poor and middle class students. Under present tax law, Wall Street bankers can deduct, from their taxes, fines they have to pay for committing fraud! Does wanting to close this ridiculous loophole and these other reforms make Sanders a communist? No. Heʼs a democratic socialist. Whatʼs more, 67 percent or more of 1,500 likely voters polled agree with him on these tax issues.
A third reason for Sanders being the best candidate is the way heʼs running his campaign. He is the only candidate — of either party — who refuses to accept money from a super-PAC or other form of corporate donations. Does Bernie refuse big donations from corporate America because he hates capitalism and is therefore a communist? No. Bernie doesnʼt hate capitalism. But he understands that when capitalism runs completely free, only a very few gain and the many lose. The many lose jobs as in the Great Recession. They lose a clean environment. The many lose the social safety net, a net established to ameliorate the greed which capitalism feeds. They lose their democratic government because money starts to buy elections. The Koch brothers are committing $900 million to the 2016 elections, for example. In contrast, Bernie only solicits small donations from individual citizens, and heʼs being surprisingly successful at it. But is it such a surprise? No, because these donors realize that Bernie is one of them. At campaign events, he is outdrawing Hillary Clinton and any of the Republican candidates — even in "Red States." However, despite these successes and despite viewer polls which show Bernie winning the first Democratic debate, the mass media would have people believe that Sanders canʼt win — either in the primary or in the general election. The media keep repeating this claim over and over. Why? Perhaps itʼs because the mass media is owned by corporations or by wealthy families. Perhaps corporate America and the wealthy understand that if Bernie wins, itʼs us, the people, who win and not them.
Vote for the best candidate in the Democratic primary, and then for him in the general election next November. Vote for Bernie Sanders, and take the first step in taking back the government which is supposed to be "...of the people."

Mike Dowal
New Hampton

  • Category: Letters
  • Hits: 372