Will Pawlenty turn down $263 million?

  • Article by: KEVIN DIAZ , Star Tribune
  • Updated: August 19, 2010 - 9:48 PM

Minnesota won't get the federal health dollars unless the governor officially asks for the money for low-income Medicaid patients.

  • 137
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
noinkAug. 19, 10 9:56 PM

If Minnesota takes this $263 million will it cost us Minnesota taxpayers an additional $1 billion to fund the federal program?

llinmplsAug. 19, 10 9:57 PM

Get a haircut, run for Prez and let the poor saps tug-tug-tug.

btaleenAug. 19, 1010:03 PM

are you a big time hipocrite or are you going to hose over needy people who need such trivial things like seeing a doctor or medical procedures? What you gonna do big boy? Nuff said.

simbixAug. 19, 1010:04 PM

I understand Pawlenty feels a need to take his campaign march to the battlefields of Iowa and New Hampshire, but why must he burn the villages of Minnesota on the way out.

bugmenot99Aug. 19, 1010:09 PM

At the same time the Republicans can claim an increase in household income by lopping off the bottom. Whether they die from goofy muslim terrorists or goofy Christian Republicans withholding healthcare, they are just as dead.

twirwinAug. 19, 1010:14 PM

ask for a few billion? Or even a trillion??They just print it or borrow it, so why not? Apparently is doesn't matter how much our children owe, so lets not be cheap here. I say we just continue to pretend that somehow money that comes from the Federal government is free.

smileabitAug. 19, 1010:19 PM

I think it is. It’s the one where 16 billion goes to Medicaid, and 10 goes to education.
Now in order for Minnesotans to get back the money that they pay in federal taxes (or government debt, or inflation), the feds use it to strong arm states into giving up their states rights. What would be our lost rights you may ask. Well let me fill in the blanks.

The federal restrictions on this bill, state that this federal money is to supplement, NOT REPLACE, current spending. That sounds ok. But it also states that each state would have to match, or exceed, this years spending, for next year. Not one of the 50 states knows if they’ll receive the same federal assistance (aka our federal tax money) back next year. So it’s tough for a governor to guarantee they’ll spend even more money then they have for next year, when all but 5 or so states are running at a loss already this year.

Oh, and that 26.1 billion dollar nameless bill – Why was it even needed when we haven’t even seen 350+ billion dedicated yet from the 2009 (last years) stimulus bill (which had provisions for... yep, you got it. Education...). TPaw, I'd rather be known as the United States of America, than One Big State of North America. I'd rather let this state decide what's best for us, not political lifers who don't even live here. Say no.

bigticketAug. 19, 1010:21 PM

Turn down the money? It isn't real. It doesn't exist. seriously, where do you progressives think this money comes from? Cutting funding from another unfunded bill doesn't make it real. But it's become obvious even Econ 101 is meaningless in government.

lorizzAug. 19, 1010:22 PM

Thankfully I've never voted for "Palenty for you & yours & nothing for the regular folks". The only good thing to come of his dalliance with our Seniors & low income people is that just MAYBE the rest of the country will see the greed & wise up. Shortly after he took office I heard him on a radio interview say something along the lines of the obese people and the smokers are a real drain on Minnesota's economy. At the time I thought to myself "Line us up & shoot us then". Glad I didn't comment back then, he maybe would have done it.

hotdigitydogAug. 19, 1010:29 PM

... he cares more about his presidential fantasies than he does about Minnesota.


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters