Political Hypocrisy 101: Perry’s Texas Gets LOTS of Federal Money
I need to preface this post by saying that I am a HUGE fan of Texas. I love visiting Texas. I love Texans. And I think too many Texans have been burned by the false stereotype of the exaggerating, bloviating Texas politician in a state that has many fine elected officials from both parties. But, truly, honestly, Texas Gov. Rick Perry should be in a Political Hypocrisy 101 book. The Politico reports:
The first rule of asking for extra federal dollars in Texas is to never make it seem like you are asking for extra federal dollars.
For Gov. Rick Perry, this is a tricky line to walk. Because as much as the Republican presidential candidate bashes the federal government in his campaign speeches, Texas gets a lot of money from the feds — and a lot of it is going to the health care system he insists Texas can handle on its own.
This must mean “it all depends on what its own is..”
Perry has repeatedly decried the spending culture of Washington, railing against both President Barack Obama’s health care law and the federal stimulus. But as it happens, Texas has taken a lot of money from both.
“How much?” I hear you say. “It’s not a lot,” I can just hear some partisan talk show hosts say. The Politico:
More than $380 million in early grants and other aid from the federal health law have already gone to businesses and agencies in the Lone Star State, according to figures from the Department of Health and Human Services, and Texas ended up with $17 billion from the stimulus.
Now, the state is waiting for final approval of a new waiver from federal Medicaid rules that could allow the state to draw down an additional $12 billion in funds from the federal government.
And that’s before the main parts of the Affordable Care Act even kick in, bringing billions of dollars to Texas in extra Medicaid funds and subsidies to help people buy private coverage through a new health insurance exchange.
If the law survives its upcoming review by the Supreme Court, its expansion of Medicaid alone could cost the federal government anywhere from $53 billion to $67 billion in aid to Texas by 2019, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
That’s more than any other state would get under that part of the law. The only other state that comes close is California, which would get between $45 billion and $55 billion in federal Medicaid funds.
Oh…
14 Responses to “Political Hypocrisy 101: Perry’s Texas Gets LOTS of Federal Money”
I’ll be honest unless you think he could of stopped the money then what is your point? While he has said that States should handle more on their own part of that would be the Feds not taxing for what they no longer provide. I don’t think allowing, or even asking, for your own money back is hypocritical. Texas is one of the States that is taxed more than it gets.
EEllis is certainly consistent… consistently missing the point.
It’s true that Texas sends more than it receives according to the latest data. There are two caveats to that. It’s close. In the case of Texas the most recent data has them sending more than received by 6 cents on the dollar. The trend has been for them to get closer and closer to breaking “even”. Also, the latest data is from before the crash of 2008 so there’s no way of telling how that’s affected the numbers.
As true as that may be that’s not the point of the article. Ellis is trying to make it the point… but it isn’t.
The article is about the fact that Perry constantly bashes the Federal Government for being useless while actively soliciting and maximizing monies received from Federal programs…. aka Political Hypocrisy
I’ve always been puzzled by the idea that if you want to reduce taxes and spending you should receive no government money. The bottom line is that the government will take money from you whether you want to not. So if you object to that, you also have to shaft yourself by not getting _any_ of it back?
I’m amazed at how many ways people try to avoid addressing the fact that Governor Perry says he believes that a thing is wrong and then he turns around and participates in exactly what he professes to be wrong.
Certainly, if it’s there… take it. But don’t take it and then say that it’s wrong and shouldn’t have been there. If you think something is wrong stick with your principles you can’t have it both ways.
Why is it that the people on the ‘right’ can’t see the hypocrisy in this?
Steve, hypocrisy is OK if you’re a republican. Dont’cha know?
Seems like Texas asks for money from the federal government:
“Now, the state is waiting for final approval of a new waiver from federal Medicaid rules that could allow the state to draw down an additional $12 billion in funds from the federal government.”
So I agree with davidpsummers- if Texas pays, they should receive some of it back.
Another point:
The Texas energy companies sell their products (oil and gas) to consumers all over the US and transport those goods using infrastructure paid for by taxpayers from all over the country.
Even if Texas pays slightly more to the federal government than it receives, the benefit of federal government services (supported by taxpayers across the nation) that Texas companies receive is far greater than the taxes Texas pays to the federal government.
Again, that’s not the point of this post.
The point of the post is hypocrisy… Saying one thing and doing the opposite.
I’m sorry working with what you have does not mean you can’t want a change. Also you just give Perry to much credit. Texas is set up so we have one of the weakest Gov offices in the country. You might remember how everyone bashed Perry for trying to turn down new unemployment insurance money. He was over ruled. Perry’s power comes from his time in office and his connections in the State govt. not the actual power of the office. The legislature can easily override him if they want so why should he get in loosing fights?
Does he? I know he’s said they were ineffective, that monies sent to the feds would be better handled by the States, that things the Feds should be doing, like securing the border, they are failing at. How does any of that mean you shouldn’t want as much money coming back to your state as possible?
SK you want a rise in taxes with/or removal of deductions but I bet you still take the deductions available to you right? Or is it just all those other deductions not yours? Yeh right, who’s hypocritical.
In the end it doesn’t matter (except to the Texans who are stuck with the guy) because Perry will never be president of the USA – if for no other reason than the fact he reminds people too much of Duh-bya.
Well, if he says “If you pay money to the government, it is wrong to try and get some of it back”, then yes, this is hypocritical. OTOH, I’ve never heard him say anything like that. Nor is it clear to me why it would fit his platform. Now maybe you guy that obsess over him have a quote like that you can give us, then more power to you. But as far as anything I’ve seen here, I don’t see this as being hypocrisy [1]. If he says that it wrong for the government to tax money and spend it, instead of states or individuals spending that money, I don’t see what, once the money has been taxed, obligates him to refuse to get any of it back.
[1] Note: I have little doubt that he has been, and will be again, a hypocrite. After all, he is a member of one of the two parties and I’ve seen his lips move. However, I don’t see the logic in saying that if you want to reduce taxation and you get taxed against your will, you have to give up the benefits.
How much of that Federal money CAN be refused, anyway? IIRC, Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss, along with some Chairforce installations, are in Texas, and cover quite a lot of land area between all the military installations, federal “Lands” (Held, technically, in trust for the state-good luck on a state taking any of it OUT of that Trust), Federal Border Patrol stations, and, iirc, the mission control centre for NASA.
Federal Monies “Spent” in a state don’t necessarily translate into economic benefits for the RESIDENTS of that State. In the case of lands held in Federal Trust, it can even be to the detriment of the residents of a state (as happened in Utah a few years ago with the ‘grand staircase escalante’ deal-which traded family-wage jobs for burger-flipper part-time work in an area that’s been economically depressed for years. Federal money spent, little to no benefit to the citizens who live there, although it did give one more roadside attraction for the trickle of rare eco-tourists from California and D.C.)
Just ’cause uncle sam spent money, doesn’t mean it was good for the people of a state. It just means the money was allocated by congress…