The evolution of American federalism

Refresh my memory, are we expanding or contracting Medicaid?  Why is it that I can't seem to remember!?

The Obama administration would permit a controversial plan by Arizona's governor to cut an estimated 250,000 impoverished adults from Medicaid, despite a provision in the new health-care law barring states from tightening their eligibility standards for the program, federal officials said Wednesday.

Here is more.  In a not totally unrelated development, Florida's governor rejects $2 billion in federal aid for a high-speed rail line linking Tampa and Orlando.  What's the implicit MRS on federal funds vs. unrestricted funds here?

What will "the new federalism" look like?  I see rapid evolution.


This is a good start. See also Wisconsin and New Jersey.

Is there really a bias here? Certainly, the quote in isolation is inflammatory, but honestly I don't see how it supports either a pro-federalist or anti-federalist position (or, more precisely, a pro-centralization or anti-centralization position).

Indeed, the word "federalist" means so many different things to different people (some use it to describe a centralization of power, others to describe a decentralization) that it seems rather useless.

Impoverished? I think I need some documentation on that. Quite a loaded word.

IVV, the initial line on Medicaid and the quote from the WP article have nothing to do with federalism. The line suggests that Obamacare is not expanding Medicaid as feared by its opponents. The WP article makes clear that there were good reasons for the governor to expect a waiver. There is a debate about the many waivers granted by the Obama Administration to deal with some "unintended" consequences of Obamacare. Most waivers have been granted discretionarily to special interests and it's curious that WP and Tyler point to the one granted to Arizona.
To discuss old, new, and future federalism, Tyler has to focus on how the relationship between the Federal governments and the states is changing as a result of the fiscal crises that several states are facing.

On Amtrak, I'm sure the best solution is to put the $2B in a trust and use the interest to buy cars for those without cars who need to travel that route, along with paying for drivers for those who are blind, disabled, or not permitted to drive because of age, etc over the next hundred years that travel between the two cities can be expected to take place (after which Florida is evacuated as the oceans rise).

I bet the transcontinental railroad was just wasted government spending because it didn't repay the investment in 5-7 years.

Comments for this post are closed