Topic of the Day | Page 64 | Barking Hard

Topic of the Day

I didn't hear the credit card stipulation on tips, but if true then whoever wanted that rule should compel themselves to the general public as to why?

Anyway, Social Security is now tax free too.
 
Cash vs. card tips

Las Vegas workers had mixed reactions to the news. Some said customers tip often in cash, so it’ll have a larger impact. Others said they receive many tips via credit card, so they won’t see much of a change.
 
What we get wrong about Medicaid 'cuts'
Reasons to question whether the reductions are real


Headlines assert that the reforms Republicans recently passed amount to a trillion-dollar cut to Medicaid. The New York Times calls this the most significant cut to federal healthcare spending in history. Is that so?

Maybe not. There are reasons to question whether cuts are actually happening, or if they are, who bears responsibility for the reduction.

Of the $1 trillion in “cuts” to Medicaid, $167 billion is coming from a 10-year delay of two Joe Biden rules that were finalized in 2023 and haven’t taken effect, both aimed at making re-enrollment procedures more permissive for different groups. It’s a stretch to characterize as a “cut” spending increases that have not occurred, especially when these increases come from the prevention of states identifying people no longer eligible for the program.

An additional $191 billion in alleged spending cuts concerns provider taxes, a complex issue that major news networks don’t understand. States fund Medicaid by taxing providers — hospitals and doctors — and then paying that money back to the same providers. That enabled states to claim this as a Medicaid expenditure and collect the matching funds from the federal government.

This fake accounting, facilitated by provider taxes, allowed states to spend money on Medicaid without actually incurring their expenses. Understanding this potential for abuse, Congress passed a law saying that such use of provider taxes would not qualify for the matching federal funds decades ago.

Unfortunately, there was an exception. As long as the provider tax levy stayed below 6%, the government would look the other way. Because the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) offered states a much more generous match of $9 for every $1 the state spent on the expansion population, states started looking for ways to boost their provider taxes while staying under the 6% threshold that triggered closer scrutiny.

Of course, the states remained free to tax providers at any rate they wanted — 6%, 50%, 150% or more. Still, if they did so, the government would take a close look to make sure that they weren’t funneling that money back to the providers to enhance their federal intake.

That’s why the legislation reduces that 6% threshold to 3.5%, which in the past, President Obama, the Washington Post, and the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended.

While this may indeed lead to reductions in Medicaid spending, describing it as a cut obscures reality. With this provision, neither the federal matching formula is changing nor is it forbidding the use of provider tax as a source of funds. There is no “limit” to the taxes states can impose on providers, but a limit to how much abuse the feds will overlook.

If states want to limit their provider taxes to meet federal standards, that’s for each state to decide.

Finally, the largest component of the alleged $1 trillion cut in Medicaid spending comes from new work requirements for Medicaid recipients. (Notably, this restriction is broadly popular with Americans.) The work requirement exempts children, pregnant women, the disabled, the elderly, caretakers and parents of young children. The only people it is designed to apply to are working-age, work-capable people. According to the Congressional Budget Office, work requirements will lead to reduced spending of $326 billion.

An argument could be made that this qualifies as a cut, as it is a new restriction on program eligibility. On the other hand, an argument could be made that, unlike some restrictions on eligibility, this is a voluntary cut and is up to the beneficiary. Prospective Medicaid beneficiaries will decide whether the program benefits are worthwhile, considering the trade-off of the new work requirement, and the benefits will remain available to them.

As lawmakers and citizens consider how to afford the fast-growing costs of the Medicaid program, it’s vital to distinguish actual reductions in benefits from changes in incentives.

The reforms to be implemented offer several examples where the public should consider whether anything is being cut and who exactly is making the decision.

Jeremy Nighohossian is a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.
July 11, 2025
 
It’s a stretch to characterize as a “cut” spending increases that have not occurred, especially when these increases come from the prevention of states identifying people no longer eligible for the program.
Why is this "A stretch"? Removing fraudulent people/claims is good and states like Ca can't be trusted to do it accurately.
An additional $191 billion in alleged spending cuts concerns provider taxes, a complex issue that major news networks don’t understand. States fund Medicaid by taxing providers — hospitals and doctors — and then paying that money back to the same providers. That enabled states to claim this as a Medicaid expenditure and collect the matching funds from the federal government.
Again good! Why does the Fed allow states to tax AND collect matching funds in the first place?
This fake accounting, facilitated by provider taxes, allowed states to spend money on Medicaid without actually incurring their expenses. Understanding this potential for abuse, Congress passed a law saying that such use of provider taxes would not qualify for the matching federal funds decades ago.
Yet here we are changing the rule that was done "decades ago"?
Unfortunately, there was an exception. As long as the provider tax levy stayed below 6%, the government would look the other way. Because the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) offered states a much more generous match of $9 for every $1 the state spent on the expansion population, states started looking for ways to boost their provider taxes while staying under the 6% threshold that triggered closer scrutiny.

Of course, the states remained free to tax providers at any rate they wanted — 6%, 50%, 150% or more. Still, if they did so, the government would take a close look to make sure that they weren’t funneling that money back to the providers to enhance their federal intake.

That’s why the legislation reduces that 6% threshold to 3.5%, which in the past, President Obama, the Washington Post, and the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson Commission recommended.

While this may indeed lead to reductions in Medicaid spending, describing it as a cut obscures reality. With this provision, neither the federal matching formula is changing nor is it forbidding the use of provider tax as a source of funds. There is no “limit” to the taxes states can impose on providers, but a limit to how much abuse the feds will overlook.

If states want to limit their provider taxes to meet federal standards, that’s for each state to decide.

Finally, the largest component of the alleged $1 trillion cut in Medicaid spending comes from new work requirements for Medicaid recipients. (Notably, this restriction is broadly popular with Americans.) The work requirement exempts children, pregnant women, the disabled, the elderly, caretakers and parents of young children. The only people it is designed to apply to are working-age, work-capable people. According to the Congressional Budget Office, work requirements will lead to reduced spending of $326 billion.

An argument could be made that this qualifies as a cut, as it is a new restriction on program eligibility. On the other hand, an argument could be made that, unlike some restrictions on eligibility, this is a voluntary cut and is up to the beneficiary. Prospective Medicaid beneficiaries will decide whether the program benefits are worthwhile, considering the trade-off of the new work requirement, and the benefits will remain available to them.

As lawmakers and citizens consider how to afford the fast-growing costs of the Medicaid program, it’s vital to distinguish actual reductions in benefits from changes in incentives.

The reforms to be implemented offer several examples where the public should consider whether anything is being cut and who exactly is making the decision.

Jeremy Nighohossian is a senior fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He wrote this for InsideSources.com.
July 11, 2025


I could keep going. Anyway, I'm ok with the medicaid changes right now. It'll likely need modification for oversights and things as we move along and get better.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is sponsored by Pfizer, but ok.
 
Why is this "A stretch"? Removing fraudulent people/claims is good and states like Ca can't be trusted to do it accurately.

Again good! Why does the Fed allow states to tax AND collect matching funds in the first place?

Yet here we are changing the rule that was done "decades ago"?



I could keep going. Anyway, I'm ok with the medicaid changes right now. It'll likely need modification for oversights and things as we move along and get better.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is sponsored by Pfizer, but ok.


Actually... The people currently on Medicaid (who belong on it) will benefit from this. Because we're cutting fraud and waste in important areas and more resources will become available for the elderly and disabled... Even those who are on SNAP will see an increase once illegals and able bodied workers are taken off.. At least... That is my hope..
 
Cash vs. card tips

Las Vegas workers had mixed reactions to the news. Some said customers tip often in cash, so it’ll have a larger impact. Others said they receive many tips via credit card, so they won’t see much of a change.
I read now CC will be deductible also. smh
 
Good catch. thought he was not white washing.

There will be little to no savings on healthcare. that junkie is too powerful. Doctors just treat people and their accountants pass the cost on.
so we that buy their insurance etc will pay. as always.


The sad part is every treatment now is a protocol... No one treats the patient anymore... They just treat a slew of diseases by method.. Everyone is basically on the same diabetic and inflammatory meds..... It's a viscious cycle...
 


TIM ALLEN - ON TRUMP: Whatever your feelings for Trump, these are some interesting points that Tim Allen makes. Put your hatred aside and think about these observations. Tim Allen is credited with writing this ...

Tim Allen wrote... Here are some interesting points to think about prior to 2020, especially to my friends on the fence, like moderate Democrats, Libertarians and Independents and the never Trump Republicans and those thinking of "walking away" from the Democratic party:

- Women are upset at Trump’s naughty words -- they also bought 80 million copies of 50 Shades of Gray.

- Not one feminist has defended Sarah Sanders. It seems women’s rights only matter if those women are liberal.

- No Border Walls. No voter ID laws. Did you figure it out yet? But wait... there's more...

- Chelsea Clinton got out of college and got a job at NBC that paid $900,000 per year. Her mom flies around the country speaking out about white privilege. And just like that, they went from being against foreign interference in our elections to allowing non-citizens to vote in our elections.

- President Trump’s wall costs less than the Obamacare website. Let that sink in, America!

- We are one election away from open borders, socialism, gun confiscation, and full-term abortion nationally. We are fighting evil.

- They sent more troops and armament to arrest Roger Stone than they sent to defend Benghazi.
- 60 years ago, Venezuela was 4th on the world economic freedom index. Today, they are 179th and their citizens are dying of starvation. In only 10 years, Venezuela was destroyed by democratic socialism.

- Russia donated $0.00 to the Trump campaign. Russia donated $145,600,000 to the Clinton Foundation. But Trump was the one investigated!

- Nancy Pelosi invited illegal aliens to the State of the Union. President Trump Invited victims of illegal aliens to the State of the Union. Let that sink in.

- A socialist is basically a communist who doesn’t have the power to take everything from their citizens at gunpoint ... Yet!

- How do you walk 3000 miles across Mexico without food or support and show up at our border 100 pounds overweight and with a cellphone?

- Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wants to ban cars, ban planes, give out universal income and thinks socialism works. She calls Donald Trump crazy.

- Bill Clinton paid $850,000 to Paula Jones To get her to go away. I don’t remember the FBI raiding his lawyer’s office.

- I wake up every day and I am grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president of the United States of America. The same media that told me Hillary Clinton had a 95% chance of winning, now tells me Trump’s approval ratings are low.

- “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”— Margaret Thatcher

- Maxine Waters opposes voter ID laws; She thinks that they are racist. You need to have a photo ID to attend her town hall meetings.

- President Trump said — "They’re not after me. They’re after you. I’m just in their way." Now, go Back & Read this Again like your Future Depends upon it, Because it Does!
 
20250725-180429.png
 
Byron York

On July 11, the Trump administration laid off about 1,350 employees at the State Department. A number of news reports described the staff cuts as “devastating.” Others suggested the downsizing will endanger U.S. national security. The New York Times said the cuts “demote longtime U.S. values,” while The Washington Post said they “will degrade America’s standing in the world and curb U.S. soft power.”

First, a little perspective.

According to State Department documents, the total number of department employees has grown significantly over the years. In 2007, there were 57,340. By 2015, there were 72,895. By 2024, there were 80,214. That is an increase of 22,874 employees in the course of 17 years. After the addition of 22,874 employees, can a cut of 1,350 be “devastating”?

Nearly three months ago, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said big changes were coming. The hiring of thousands of new employees over the past decade and a half, Rubio said, not only made operations cumbersome and less efficient, but it also distracted from the department’s core goals.

“In its current form, the department is bloated, bureaucratic and unable to perform its essential diplomatic mission in this new era of great power competition,” Rubio said in a statement on April 22. “Over the past 15 years, the department’s footprint has had unprecedented growth, and costs have soared. But far from seeing a return on investment, taxpayers have seen less effective and efficient diplomacy. The sprawling bureaucracy created a system more beholden to radical political ideology than advancing America’s core national interests.”

The cuts are focused and not across-the-board. A significant number appear to be at the department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, known as DRL. “Our entire office is just … gone,” a senior official who took deferred retirement told NBC News. The administration had already cut most of DRL’s funding, so it was no surprise that the bureau’s staff was next.

Rubio has long believed that the State Department has become sidetracked from its main mission. In 2023, when he was in the Senate, he published, along with Rep. Brian Mast, a report titled “Diversity Over Diplomacy: How Wokeness Is Weakening the U.S. State Department.” Rubio noted that the Biden State Department seemed to be more concerned with promoting diversity than with dealing with the China threat.

“Why did the Biden administration create internal Offices of Diversity and Inclusion at both the State Department and USAID?” Rubio asked. “Why did State and USAID request $83.3 million from Congress for their FY2024 budget, a full 26.9 percent increase from their 2023 budget request for diversity recruiting initiatives? Surely such resources would be better spent countering Beijing, yet to date there has been no institution-wide messaging in the State Department on China.”

Rubio and Mast listed some of the same questionable expenditures from the State Department that, two years later, were eliminated by the DOGE effort. There was the funding for drag theater in Ecuador; support for an “LGBT activist group supporting prostitution in Colombia”; the “film festival featuring incest and pedophilia in Portugal”; the memo from then-Secretary of State Antony Blinken that “could be construed to classify Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom as human rights abusers for their association with ‘conversion therapy’ treatment for gender dysphoria”; the grant to “promote social acceptance of LGBTQI+ persons” in Botswana; and more.

Projects such as these “distracted State Department leaders from their duty to protect and promote America’s national security,” Rubio wrote. And not just leaders; in the State Department, workers got ahead by “behavior that advances DEIA core values,” Rubio added. “Until the State Department reprioritizes national security and recommits itself to its stated mission — to protect and promote U.S. security, prosperity and democratic values — our diplomats will continue to lose focus, cohesion and morale.”

Now Rubio, with a mandate from President Donald Trump, is in a position to act on his beliefs.

A few of the laid-off workers left messages taped to walls and mirrors. “Here sat America’s experts on democracy, human rights (yes, which includes women’s, LGBTQ+, &minorities’ rights), elections security, freedom of expression, privacy, on countering corruption, violent extremism and disinformation and more,” said one message. “You’ve just released them and hundreds of their colleagues into the wild … in the United States of America.”

Another message was more succinct: “Colleagues, if you remain: RESIST FASCISM. Remember the oath you vowed to uphold.”

It seems likely the creators of those flyers were not totally on board with Secretary Rubio’s new direction. Maybe it is best that they leave.

In any event, the cuts, which amount to about 1.6 percent of State Department staff, can hardly be described as “devastating.” Of course they are upsetting for those who lost their jobs. But this kind of thing happens every day in the private sector, sometimes involving many more people, without the kind of hand-wringing that has characterized media coverage of the State Department.

Now, as he takes the heat in the coverage, it’s time for Rubio to keep going, to put into place the reforms he envisioned for the department. In politics, such opportunities do not last long.

 
Back
Top Bottom