When Scott Walker refused to accept an expansion of Medicaid as part of Obamacare, he told Wisconsinites that he was acting in their best interests, saying he didn’t trust the feds to pick up the cost of the expansion in future years.
He also took an ideological tack, saying that turning the funds down was part of a plan to end people’s “generational dependence on government.”
We’ll return to the “dependence” argument in a moment, but first, let’s take a look at the true cost of Walker’s decision to treat the offer of federal Medicaid dollars like a Trojan horse (that’s packed stem to stern with billions and billions in cash and nothing else).
Thanks to a new report from The Commonwealth Fund (PDF), we have a better handle on what Walker’s presidential campaign talking point will end up costing the rest of us.
Obamacare — which Republicans aren’t entirely fond of, in case you hadn’t heard — allows states to expand Medicaid eligibility to people with incomes at or below 138% of the poverty level. The feds will pay 100% of the costs of the expansion until 2016 and will continue to pay 90% in 2020 and thereafter.
It’s a pretty sweet deal, and not taking advantage of it is pretty selfish. It’s one thing to look down at your shoes and kick the dirt like Pa Ingalls, saying you couldn’t possibly take no charity. But if little Laura and Mary have the scarlet fever and rickets and Lyme disease and the consumption and smallpox and cowpox and feline AIDS and dengue and the stigmata and osteoporosis and hysterical blindness and torn ACLs/rotator cuffs and concussion-like symptoms from falling off — and getting kicked in the head by — a horse and/or syphilitic caribou (see Little House on the Prairie, any episode), it’s simply immoral to deny them medical care, even if you suspect that they’re lazy and have had it far too good for too long.
It’s particularly objectionable if you’re doing just fine and your miserliness only affects others.
Well, here’s a short summary (from The Commonwealth Fund study) of what Scott Walker’s miserliness hath wrought:
We find that the Medicaid expansion will be a relatively large source of federal revenue to state enterprises. The value of new federal funds flowing annually to states that choose to participate in the Medicaid expansion in 2022 will be, on average, about 2.35 times as great as expected federal highway funds going to state governments in that year and over one-quarter as large as expected defense procurement contracts to states.
No state would experience a positive flow of funds by choosing to reject the Medicaid expansion. Because the federal share of the Medicaid expansion is so much greater than the state share, taxpayers in nonparticipating states will nonetheless bear a significant share of the overall cost of the expansion through federal tax payments — and not enjoy any of the benefits. [Emphasis added]
In short, Walker’s politically motivated decision is contributing to our status as a donor state when it comes to federal tax dollars — and it’s not helping our residents any. The Commonwealth Fund concludes that “states’ decisions whether or not to expand Medicaid will have profound effects on their residents.”
Of course, that’s obvious with respect to those Wisconsin residents who would otherwise be covered under Medicaid, but what about the rest of us? Well, it should be self-evident that starving us of our own tax dollars can only be bad for our economy.
So what’s the bottom line? How badly will Wisconsin get dinged because Scott Walker took the old chestnut that any kid can grow up to be president a bit too literally?
The Commonwealth Fund has a sneak preview: In 2022, Wisconsin will leave $1.75 billion in Medicaid dollars on the table, and its net loss of federal funds will be $1.85 billion. (H/T to the indispensible “Jake Formerly of the LP,” to whom I would like to give a proper surname for Christmas.)
As you see, Scott Walker can’t do basic arithmetic — which may be why he dislikes teachers so much.
(Continued)
Â
Meanwhile, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation report reveals the human misery that will result from this rampant shortsightedness and ideological posturing: Nationwide, 5.2 million adults will fail to get health insurance coverage because their states opted to refuse additional Medicaid dollars.
But what’s that you say? Scott Walker is doing Wisconsin’s poor folk a favor by weaning them off the dependency crack pipe?
To this I simply say, you need to get out more. Ronald Reagan’s tale of the mythical welfare queen didn’t really make any sense back in the early ’80s, and it sure as hell doesn’t make sense now.
There’s a good reason why some people need government largesse: Inequality is a growing problem, and the costs of many things — like health care and higher education — have skyrocketed in recent decades.
Take a moment to look at this chart, which clearly shows that since 1973, workers’ real wages have stagnated while productivity has continued to soar. And where is all that extra wealth flowing if not into workers’ pockets? Into the bank accounts of the mega-wealthy, whose financial prospects have gotten rosier and rosier each year.
And so there’s another example of how right-wing ideology is costing the rest of us. Because many big employers pay their workers so little, taxpayers are forced to subsidize their wages. Two of the biggest culprits — McDonald’s and Walmart — are also two of our country’s richest corporations.
This article from Sara Kugler on msnbc.com sums it up nicely:
A report by congressional Democrats found that in Wisconsin subsidizing Wal-Mart employees’ low wages at a single 300-employee store cost taxpayers at least $904,542 per year. Meanwhile, the Walton family who owns Wal-Mart is worth more than $100 billion. “Their whole strategy for making profit is predicated on taxpayers subsidizing low wage workers,” said Ed Ott, Distinguished Lecturer at CUNY. “When they hire people they coach them on how to access public social welfare plans, including food stamps. Right there is the boldest admission they don’t pay enough.”
Oh, but at least I can get cheap copy of Twilight: Breaking Dawn and a cheap gun to shoot it with if the character development turns out to be subpar.
But conservative orthodoxy says we can’t raise the minimum wage or do anything else that interferes with private business — even though some private businesses are evidently interfering with us. (Not to mention with small businesses that do provide benefits and a living wage and are forced to compete with the fast-food chains and big boxes.)
So if we really want to end Walker’s baleful “generational dependence on government,” we need to first end corporations’ dependence — and to give workers a fair shot.
Many of us have in our heads the image of lazy, dissolute drug addicts who are living cradle to grave off the federal teat, but the truth is less disturbing (or less comforting, if you’re a regular Fox News viewer). For example, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, “Among SNAP [food stamp] households with at least one working-age, non-disabled adult, more than half work while receiving SNAP — and more than 80 percent work in the year prior to or the year after receiving SNAP. The rates are even higher for families with children — more than 60 percent work while receiving SNAP, and almost 90 percent work in the prior or subsequent year.”
Finally, if you want a really good example of what electing a right-wing ideologue will do for you, take a look at this recent New York Times op-ed from University of Minnesota prof Lawrence Jacobs. It’s a must-read.
Jacobs persuasively argues that ever since Minnesota and Wisconsin — similar Midwestern states with similar progressive traditions — went down separate paths by electing progressive and ultra-conservative governors, respectively, we’ve headed in vastly different directions economically.
A couple of short snippets:
As a candidate, Mr. Walker promised to produce 250,000 private-sector jobs in his first term, but a year before the next election that number is less than 90,000. Wisconsin ranks 34th for job growth.
…
Along with California, Minnesota is the fifth fastest growing state economy, with private-sector job growth exceeding pre-recession levels.
So apparently Scott Walker’s economic miracle is that he’s somehow managed to make Brainerd look more palatable than Waunakee. Of course, it’s possible that Minnesota’s advantage over Wisconsin is related to something other than who is leading each state, but either way, our states’ contrasting fortunes make Walker’s desperate attempts to appear heroic and presidential look downright silly. He’ll need more than a thinly disguised campaign book to make his case should he decide to seek the White House in 2016.
Then again, he has to get past the ’14 election before he can start daydreaming about Washington, D.C.
Click here to sign up for the free IB ezine – your twice-weekly resource for local business news, analysis, voices, and the names you need to know. If you are not already a subscriber to In Business magazine, be sure to sign up for our monthly print edition here.
