New Hampshire Senators Say States Receive Enough Funding
By Daniel Remin
WASHINGTON — A recent Center on Budget and Policy Priorities report indicated that President Bush’s statement last week in which he said that his budget calls for a nine percent increase in federal grants to state governments is “misleading” because it does not take inflation into account and is “skewed” up by Medicaid.
The nine percent number is “incorrect,” according to Iris J. Lav, co-author of the CBPP report and the center’s deputy director. “Under the president’s budget, grants to state and local governments would increase by less than one third of that amount, or 2.9 percent between fiscal years 2003 and 2004 (without adjusting for inflation),” Lav said in an interview.
“I think that state governments know very well they’re not getting any nine percent increase in grants,” she said. “They are facing deficits in the $70-85 billion range for the fiscal year that begins July 1st as well as deficits that have opened up in the current fiscal year of about $25 billion.”
Besides not taking inflation into account, the report indicates that including Medicaid unfairly alters the percentages, which is why the CBPP took it out of their adjusted findings.
“If you take Medicaid out because Medicaid only really reflects the increase in health costs generally, under the president’s budget, grants to state and local governments would decline by 2.8 percent after adjusting for inflation,” Lav said.
Lav also said that the federal government should give states money for Medicaid. “Medicaid costs are going up rather rapidly, at eight or nine percent per year,” she said. “It would be very important at this point in time to assist states with Medicaid.”
Another reason for federal help to Medicaid, Lav said, is because of the gradual transfer of costs from Medicare to Medicaid.
Despite these low numbers from the CBPP, New Hampshire’s two senators said they feel state governments are getting enough money from federal funding.
“Clearly, the states are getting a very significant amount of money, especially in the area of education dollars,” Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., said in an interview. “There are many fewer strings attached as a result of the No Child Left Behind bill and the significant increase in special ed funding that we put in over the last two years.”
Sen. John E. Sununu, R-N.H., also stressed the importance of special education, especially for the state of New Hampshire. “My focus has been making sure we have strong funding for special education,” he said in an interview. “The president’s budget includes another increase in special education funding to its highest level ever. If you talk to anyone at the local level in New Hampshire, this is their single, highest priority.”
Even though Sununu said the president’s budget increases grants to states, he also stated that federal funding must be managed.
“His (Bush’s) budget won’t be the final say in where all of the priorities are set,” Sununu said. “I think we need to control the overall level of expansion in federal spending, and the president’s budget does that.
“The president’s budget does increase direct grants to states somewhat, at about the rate of inflation, which I think is probably appropriate,” he added.
In terms of using federal funds for Medicaid, unlike Lav, Gregg said that states should not receive such aid. “That’s not the federal role,” he said. “New Hampshire receives a significant amount of money under Medicaid as do all states and it’s not the federal role to come in and take over the state’s responsibility on Medicaid.”
(Daniel Remin is an intern with the Boston University Washington News Service.)
Published in The Manchester Union Leader, in New Hampshire.
