Today is

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Governor Walker Measures Success By How Many People Are Ultimately Dependent On Government

It's always been that way with "small government" conservatives. That's why they have to repeated remind everyone that they're the small government fiscal conservatives - you wouldn't have to say it even once if you really were.

They're the ones who typically defend giant corpse business models of Wal-Mart or McDonalds whose profits are measured by how many employees and customers are on the welfare rolls for food stamps and government health care. They're also the ones who vote for the constant stream of substantial government subsidies, in the billions of dollars annually, for the insatiable profit mongers of Big Oil, Big Pharma or Big Anything.

Then we have Tea Party darling Gov. Scott Walker, who along with the Wisconsin Republican Party just created a new entitlement with expanded school vouchers that in its infancy, just made 1,000 Wisconsin families who were previously untethered to government, fully dependent on government aid to pay for sending their children to private schools. If THAT new found dependency isn't success in Scott Walker's eyes - what is it?

On Friday, in a public press release responding to a request by Sen. Tammy Baldwin asking the governor to accept federal funds to expand Medicaid in the state, Walker attempted to politically turn the tables by promoting the expansion of Obamacare. Yeah, that's right. Walker, who claims to be vehemently opposed to the ACA, said Baldwin should join him in his call to cover all private health care plans under Obamacare.

JS online Excerpt:
Madison — Gov. Scott Walker asked U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin to join him Friday in his call to allow people to access Obamacare subsidies for health care plans they buy that aren't offered on a federal insurance exchange.

First of all, once Obamacare is fully operational, there will be only two kinds of private health care insurance plans in the national market. Those that are government subsidized on the federal insurance exchange because they meet federal guidelines, and those that aren’t. That's it. The rest are covered under Medicare, Medicaid and state programs. So, if I understand what Walker is saying here, it sounds like he wants EVERYONE to receive government subsidies for their health care plans. This in turn will cause millions more to be ultimately dependent on government than what Obamacare does. I have to assume that is success to Scott Walker.

The problem I see with Walker's call is, is his long history of intellectual dishonesty and constant political play-acting topped off with a dollop of schadenfreude. He's opposed to Obamacare and won't build state exchanges, but the state sends notices to Badgercare recipients telling them they'll have to apply to Obamacare for health insurance assistance. Wouldn't you think if a governor was so opposed to something as to claim it will devastate the state, he would do everything in his state power to keep residents out of harm's way? Not Walker. He'd throw us in a runaway train rolling downhill without brakes if it means he wins something by making the opposition look bad. Again, it's not about doing what's right for the state or country. It's about the political agenda of Scott Walker.

Walker also implies the federal government can't do anything right, yet he is eager to expand a "can't do anything right" federal health care program to subsidize even more, while on his own turf he made access to the state's health care programs more restrictive than ever. It's beyond hypocrisy. This is bordering insanity.

Perhaps I'm speaking too soon, but I kind of think Baldwin missed an opportunity here by not calling Walker's bluff asking him to clarify his idea to expand Obamacare when he adamantly opposes it. What's THAT all about? Or, to ask if he has policy examples for his "subsidize all plans" within his own state health care budgets. Has he done it? You know, build a state prototype and show us the way forward. Not Scott Walker.

In other words, it's put up or shut up time.

No comments:

Post a Comment