Cuts in medicaid also affect my 21 year old daughter who is dependent on medicaid and SSI. she was born with multiple handicaps.
Medicare-my folks get that, Me too in the near future, am almost 50.

We pay taxes, I think that those programs should not be cut, they need to be managed better, but not cut.
AND my state already has state programs for health, but are in danger too of being cut, or already have, like Handicapped Children's Program which paid for my daughters hearing aids, was cut.

I think we need better management, not so many cuts, and higher taxes? Well, No, not necessarily, perhaps those :pork" programs?

No easy answers but seem to me that much money is being spent on the wrong programs.

Wikipedia info-
(((Typically, "pork" involves funding for government programs whose economic or service benefits are concentrated in a particular area but whose costs are spread among all taxpayers. Public works projects, certain national defense spending projects, and agricultural subsidies are the most commonly cited examples))))

Like that bridge to nowhere in Alaska?
Silly useless"studies"?
Programs need to be evaluated for their usefulness.
Certain areas need their programs but how about making sure they are absolutely necessary?

Higher taxes is not an easy answer, how about trimming the fat off pork programs that are not useful, not needed, not necessary NOW, that can be funded at a later time, down the road?

AARP baby
C'mom AARP speak out on this!
They probably are.
I read their mag, am gonna get my AARP card soon, when I am 50.


No one likes higher taxes, but some people DO need assistance, no ifs ands or buts, about it, they do, just a fact of life, not all can support themselves, have income to do so, and they have worked all their life, or are handicapped, mentally ill, etc. Should we punish those who "cannot do"? Should we have compassion? YES Better management? YES Cut the frills! Cut the pork! Just don't cut programs for people who need them. There has to be a level of compassion, a fight for those who are the fragile, in our society, for those who fall on hard times. Not everyone has money or the ability, a lot of them have worked long and hard, or suffered. Compassion is what makes a better society. Better management.

There are no easy answers ,and something has to give, but not the elderly, or ill, or handicapped.
Compassion!

Maybe I have no idea what I am talking about

Maybe I am not making any sense or am ignorant

But I see much waste, and bad management

States are suffering
People are suffering

i hear that there are surpluses of money unused?
Untouched?
Free those!

?????????????????

Gee the definition of pork I posted sounds like what the proposal is, to make states pay instead of everybody paying for it.

(((((some of its federal programs to the state level to be financially supported there instead of being paid for as a whole by taxpayer dollars eliminating the need of raising taxes to support those programs.))))


Oh well, I think I will stop, I don't think I know what I am saying, but I do know that it will affect, me, my daughter, parents.

Ok I guess pork, and that proposal are the opposite!

I am gonna shut up now.

Bleep

OK one More thing-
Then I will stop!
Found this-
At Least 46 States Have Imposed Cuts That Hurt Vulnerable Residents and the Economy
With tax revenue still declining as a result of the recession and budget reserves largely drained, the vast majority of states have made spending cuts that hurt families and reduce necessary services. These cuts, in turn, have deepened states’ economic problems because families and businesses have less to spend. Federal recovery act dollars and funds raised from tax increases have greatly reduced the extent, severity, and economic impact of these cuts, but only to a point. And federal aid to states is slated to expire well before state revenues have recovered.

The cuts enacted in at least 46 states plus the District of Columbia since 2008 have occurred in all major areas of state services, including health care (31 states), services to the elderly and disabled (29 states and the District of Columbia), K-12 education (34 states and the District of Columbia), higher education (43 states), and other areas. States made these cuts because revenues from income taxes, sales taxes, and other revenue sources used to pay for these services declined due to the recession. At the same time, the need for these services did not decline and, in fact, rose as the number of families facing economic difficulties increased.

These budget pressures have not abated. Because unemployment rates remain high — and are projected to stay high well into next year — revenues are likely to remain at or near their current depressed levels. This has caused a new round of cuts. Based on gloomy revenue projections, legislatures and governors have enacted budgets for the 2011 fiscal year (which began on July 1, 2010 in most states). In many states these budgets contain cuts that go even further than those enacted over the past two fiscal years.

Cuts to state services not only harm vulnerable residents but also worsen the recession — and dampen the recovery — by reducing overall economic activity. When states cut spending, they lay off employees, cancel contracts with vendors, reduce payments to businesses and nonprofits that provide services, and cut benefit payments to individuals. All of these steps remove demand from the economy. For instance, at least 44 states and the District of Columbia have reduced overall wages paid to state workers by laying off workers, requiring them to take unpaid leave (furloughs), freezing new hires, or similar actions. State and local governments have eliminated over 400,000 jobs since August 2008, federal data show. Such measures are reducing not only the level and quality of services available to state residents but also the purchasing power of workers’ families, which in turn affects local businesses and slows recovery.

States are taking actions to mitigate the extent of these cuts. Since the recession began, over 30 states have addressed their budget shortfalls in part by increasing taxes. Like budget cuts, tax increases remove demand from the economy by reducing the amount of money people have to spend. But tax increases can be less detrimental to state economies than budget cuts because some of the tax increases affect upper-income households, so are likely to result in reduced saving rather than reduced consumption. Many more states will need to consider tax increases or other revenue measures, as well as such steps as tapping remaining state rainy day funds, as a way to minimize harmful budget cuts.

The cuts thus far in state-funded services — and the resulting harm to families’ well-being and to state economies — would have been much greater without federal assistance. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided roughly $140 billion over two and a half years in the form of enhanced Medicaid funding and funding to pay for education, public safety and other services. In addition, H.R. 1586 — the August 2010 jobs bill — extended enhanced Medicaid funding through June 2011 and added $10 billion in additional education funding.

In some cases, it is possible to identify specific services that were slated for cuts but that have been protected in whole or in part by the federal funds; these include child care in Alabama and Arizona, public safety funding in Washington, prescription drugs for seniors and tuition assistance in New York, and education funding in a number of states. The Department of Education found that in an average quarter through June 30, the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund in the Recovery Act funded 266,000 education jobs and 49,000 jobs in other areas, for a total of 315,000 jobs.[1]

In other cases, it is impossible to know what would have happened if states had not received the federal funds. But it is indisputable that families and communities would be facing much more serious consequences from state cuts.

Federal aid to states, however, is scheduled to expire well before state budgets have recovered. Additional funding for Medicaid is set to end at the end of June 2011, the close of most states’ 2011 fiscal year. States will have used up much of their additional federal funding for education at that point also. But the latest available data show state revenues still far below pre-recession levels, resulting in significant state budget shortfalls that will persist into fiscal year 2012 and beyond. Indeed, historical experience and current economic projections suggest that due to declining federal assistance, fiscal year 2012 will be a more difficult budget year for states than any year to date, meaning that state budget cuts could deepen even further, causing deeper private-sector and public-sector job loss.

One way to mitigate the need for additional state spending cuts and protect the economy would be for the federal government to reduce state budget gaps by extending enhanced Medicaid funds over the period that states are expected to experience budget problems rather than cutting enhanced funding off in June 2011. At the very least, the federal government should not take any actions that make states’ budget situations worse. Certain federal tax reductions, for example, could also reduce state revenues, exacerbating state budget problems and slowing the economic recovery. Cuts to federal “domestic discretionary” spending also would worsen state budget problems and lead to job loss, since a large share of that spending takes the form of grants to states.

Whatever actions the federal government takes, states themselves can and should act to lessen the need for harmful cuts. They can do so by implementing a balanced approach to addressing their budget shortfalls, one that includes revenues rather than just ever deepening reductions in services.

I am in total agreement with the last part of this article maintaining that underlying support from the Feds is imperative. The "trickle-down effect" from the elimination of programs or raising qualification standards so the formerly qualified ranks of people can no longer be serviced is staggering in the total loss of jobs, services, etc. . Also enough can't be said for the state to maintain "responsible budgeting"!

But unfortunately this is not always "a given" along with the fact that if we don't have informed voting at the election polls then the wrong candidates are re-elected and the problem perpetuates.Then we begin the same vicious cycle all over again. We must know the candidates' stance on issues and hold them responsible to their stated campaign commitments after receiving their seats in office as well.

Otherwise left to their own devices, as in the past on other issues, re: retirement packages and salary proposals we see "the inmates are running the asylum"! That is just totally unacceptable!

Do you see where 'the problem' begins and ends with WE, the voters, that put the elected officials in the positions that control the quality (or not) of our lives? We "put them in" and we "can take them back out!"

NDY