The Nebraska Compromise and California Killer

image
Chad PeaceChad Peace
Published: 04 Jan, 2010
2 min read

Following Senator Nelson's infamous "Nebraska Compromise", which forces the other 49 states to pay for Nebraska's new Medicaid recipients, journalists, legislators, and citizens have lashed out for what has been labeled a "sleazy back-room deal" by many folks across the political spectrum. The heat of the anger towards ex-Governor Nelson comes from an innate sense of fairness; why should the rest of the country pay for the increased health care cost of Nebraska?

While the anger is newfound, State-to-State subsidization is nothing new. And if you're from California, you've been buying lunch for the rest of the country for a long time. California, through its federally mandated charity, gives anywhere from $50-$100 billion dollars a year to our friends in Washington D.C. that never comes back. To put this in perspective, California's entire budget is only $100 billion.  And we wonder why California is in financial trouble.

What California should do is demand a repeal of Alternative Minimum Income Tax (AMT) which disallows Californians to make deductions on their taxes to compensate for our higher cost of living. Abolishing the AMT alone would reduce our massive donation to the rest of the nation by a whopping 75%. That would be enough money to eliminate the state deficit and still cut taxes for Californians!

What California should do is follow the example of ex-Governor Nelson of Nebraska who is pressuring feds to pay for federal mandates through the health care negotiations. He is a much smarter guy than observers are giving him credit for; he is using the health care bill to force the feds to confront UNFUNDED FEDERAL MANDATES. He knew his "Nebraska" amendment would cause a firestorm. That's what he wanted. The only way Congress can "score" their health care expansion as "revenue neutral" or as a cost saving to the federal budget is to mandate the costs onto the states.

Note following quote from the Wall Street Journal:

"Under President Clinton, we got 94 cents back on every dollar we sent," said gubernatorial spokesman Aaron McLear, citing data compiled by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation. "Now it's 78 cents on every dollar. It makes no sense that California should be subsidizing programs in other states."

This is TRUE. And it is 75% the result of AMT. The other 25% is the federally mandated ABC -- "Anybody But California".

You Might Also Like

SQ836 supporters
Oklahoma GOP Fails To Block Open Primaries Initiative from Going Before Voters
The Oklahoma Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously rejected a challenge to a proposed ballot initiative that would open taxpayer-funded primary elections to all candidates and voters, regardless of party affiliation – paving the way for the signature petition process to begin....
17 Sep, 2025
-
4 min read
Supreme Court of the United States
Forward Party Joins Petition to SCOTUS Against State of Florida
Right now, the divide between the Republican and Democratic Parties appears beyond repair. The political rhetoric is toxic, the nation’s leadership puts party gain before lasting solutions, and few voters actually feel heard by the people elected to represent them. At a time when it seems things will only get worse from here, the Independent Voter Project filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court along with Open Primaries and the Forward Party in support of a lawsuit that targets one of the biggest culprits behind all of this....
16 Sep, 2025
-
3 min read
congress flag
Poll: 82% of Americans Want Redistricting Done by Independent Commission, Not Politicians
There may be no greater indication that voters are not being listened to in the escalating redistricting war between the Republican and Democratic Parties than a new poll from NBC News that shows 8-in-10 Americans want the parties to stop....
10 Sep, 2025
-
3 min read