Prog Blogs, Orgs & Alumni
Bank Slate
Betsy Devine
birch, finch, beech
Democracy for NH
Live Free or Die
Mike Caulfield
Miscellany Blue
Granite State Progress
Seacoast for Change
Still No Going Back
Susan the Bruce
Tomorrow's Progressives
Politicos & Punditry
The Burt Cohen Show
John Gregg
Krauss
Landrigan
Lawson
Pindell
Primary Monitor
Primary Wire
Scala
Schoenberg
Spiliotes
Welch
Campaigns, Et Alia.
Paul Hodes
Carol Shea-Porter
Ann McLane Kuster
John Lynch
Jennifer Daler
ActBlue Hampshire
NHDP
DCCC
DSCC
DNC
National
Balloon Juice
billmon
Congress Matters
DailyKos
Digby
Hold Fast
Eschaton
FiveThirtyEight
MyDD
The Next Hurrah
Open Left
Senate Guru
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
50 State Blog Network
Alabama
Arizona
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Missouri
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
The connection between federal votes and state shortfalls gets too little attention, so major kudos to Shira for highlighting this (I only wish it were the top headline of every paper in the state):
The U.S. Senate has rejected a pared-down proposal to increase the amount of money states would get for Medicaid reimbursements. Republican senators had said the enhanced FMAP money, as the reimbursement is called, would cost too much. Under the stimulus act, Congress increased the reimbursement rates by 6.2 percent through December 2010. Originally, Congress talked about continuing the increase for six months. The most recent plan would increase the rates by 3.2 percent for three months, then 1.2 percent for three months. An amendment may still be reintroduced with the pared-down proposal.
New Hampshire has budgeted $48 million of extended FMAP money - a hole that would have to be filled if the extension isn't passed at all. If the pared-down proposal goes through, the state would lose $19 million.
Gov. John Lynch said he is continuing to talk to the Obama administration and the congressional delegation. "Forty-seven governors - Republican and Democrat - have stood in support of this legislation to extend health care and employment benefits," said Lynch spokesman Colin Manning. "It's time for the obstruction to end, and for this legislation to pass."
That's right. Your state services will go down, and your property taxes will go up, and the jobless in your community will suffer, because multimillionaire legacy pol Judd Gregg, while happy to bail out the banksters, is so out of touch with reality he believes the dirty plebs would rather stay on unemployment than have a job.
Adding: and to the predictable Glibertarian Tea response about grandkids' debt, etc...: Where were you when Bush and the Republicans, during good economic times, took Clinton's surplus and spent it on repeated tax cuts for the richest among us, and for a second war that had nothing to do with 9/11?
Addinger: Theda thinks I'm being naive. I think she's probably right:
Republicans are not "compassionate" toward the unemployed, complain Democrats and bloggers. Sorry, folks, that is not what is happening here.
Republicans have figured out that if they undercut economic recovery and increase unemployment rates, they will gain in the 2010 elections -- and probably have a much better shot in 2012. They want to repeat the old cycle: Republicans undercut the economy and run up debt to pay for reckless wars and upper class tax cuts, then hand the mess to Democrats just long enough for them to take a few small steps and get the blame, then Republicans get back in office as the economy recovers. Repeat same recipe after that. It works! So why should they stop doing it?
