Skip to content
Subscribe

The Nebraska Compromise and California Killer

Published:

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".

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

The Nebraska Compromise and California Killer

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us