Trump's So-Called Medicaid 'Cuts' Actually Increase Federal Spending

Of course, most of the media didn't report it that way. They reported that the president's proposal "slashes spending." That he wants to cut "at least $610 billion" from Medicaid. That "Trump's Budget Cuts Deeply Into Medicaid." And so on.

That might be vaguely true in the Washington sense. It's not at all true in the real-world sense.

If you look at the actual White House budget proposal, you'll note that it includes tables for "baseline" spending and "proposed" spending. Baseline spending is spending that would occur if nothing changes—if Congress doesn't order any new aircraft carriers, and America doesn't start any new wars. If entitlement eligibility rules remain the same, and expected benefits for each recipient neither shrink nor grow. Things like that. Make some minor adjustments for inflation and population growth and, barring some unforeseen windfall or cataclysm, you can project how much a program will cost in future years.

The baseline spending curve for Medicaid points upward. In 2017, the program is expected to cost roughly $378 billion. A decade from now, the baseline spending for Medicaid rises to $688 billion—an 82 percent increase in nominal dollars.

Trump's proposed spending for Medicaid points upward, too—just not as sharply.

Under his budget proposal, Medicaid spending would rise from $378 billion this year to $524 billion in 2027. That's a 38 percent nominal increase.

True, inflation will reduce the effective size of either increase to some extent. And population growth could increase demand for Medicaid and other social programs, although population growth in the U.S. is the slowest it's been in nearly a century.

BLB takes two main forms: zero BLB (which does not assume growth so debates are on if or where to increase spending) and the form loved by progressives that assumes increases (so debates are on how must spending should be increased relative to the automatic increase).

The latter was first foisted on the country by congressional leaders in the waning days of the Carter administration in order to prevent Reagan from ever cutting spending, as they were terrified he would.

One of the central features of the Contract With America was a return to Zero-BLB which alone constrained spending to the point that funding was able to catch up somewhat.

Here we come to an observation of mine that touches on your Uniparty.

First look up an article from 1998 Reason magazine, IIRC, called “Not So Radical Republicans”. In this article it is revealed that barely 4 years after the Republicans took the Congress that party discipline was in tatters and the revolution was over.

Recall that the Republicans were the first home for so-called “progressivism” and it was only later that the Democrats fell to it. What we call “RINOs” are actually the real Republicans. Only as “progressives” the left has passed them by. This too really came to a head in the 1972-1980 era as the far left Republicans first bolted the RNC for the company of their fellow lefty loons to try to get McGovern elected. The more “moderate” leftist in the RNC stayed where they were. These would be impossible to distinguish from the likes of FDR who kicked the Constitution to the curb.

This is important: these Republicans are less dedicated leftists than those who subsequently made the DNC such an unwholesome place (Carter was the last push back by the old Democrat party against the progressives). They were NEVER dedicated to the Constitution or what this country was founded to be, only to the government as an ongoing concern. Being halfhearted is what makes them so unstable and untrustworthy.

They sometimes resist the growth of government but once it has grown they defend that growth because people have come to need it (or whatever excuse they give).

But history has shown that they are only able to resist growing government for partisan reasons. The same bunch that tepidly opposed Clinton suddenly found their oats, and spendthrift ways, once W was in the White House. Roll forward a few years and the same folks that voted for Medicare D under Bush voted in lockstep against Obamaharm. Now suddenly once there’s a Republican POTUS, however little they like him, they are now defending and trying to fix Obamaharm rather than undo it as they should, not just because it would be better but because the law is not even remotely constitutional.

The Republicans accept basically every nuance of FDR’s high handed lawlessness ad what has been built upon it ... they just are not always as rabid to expand it.

Thus their main selling point: they suck less.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.