Latest news with #PelicanInstitute
American Press
5 days ago
- Politics
- American Press
Dozens of advocates urge senators to maintain LA GATOR funding
A coalition of more than two dozen advocacy organizations is urging Louisiana senators to fully fund the newly approved LA GATOR Scholarship Program, a school choice initiative backed by Gov. Jeff Landry and recently passed by the House of Representatives. The groups praised lawmakers for taking what they called a 'monumental step forward' by advancing the program, which aims to give families publicly funded scholarships to send their children to private schools or other educational alternatives. Nearly 40,000 families have already applied, according to the letter, signaling high demand in the first year. While the House kept Landry's originally proposed $93 million budget for the program intact, Senate President Cameron Henry, R-Metairie, has said that he plans only to fund $50 million. Even with a budget of $93 million, only one-third of voucher applicants would secure a scholarship. Critics point out that by not funding those students through LA GATOR, they will have to be funded by their public schools. Further, 'dropping down to $50 million means only current voucher students will qualify,' Daniel Erspamer of the Pelican Institute told The Center Square. 'Some voucher students are about to graduate, and this would mean no new students entering kindergarten, which would have happened' in the Louisiana Scholarship Program. LA GATOR replaced the LSP. Among the signatories were national and state groups including the Pelican Institute, Louisiana Association of Business and Industry, ExcelinEd, the Alliance for Educational Freedom, and the American Legislative Exchange Council. They urged senators to maintain funding levels in the governor's budget, saying the program could transform educational access for thousands of Louisiana students. The letter emphasized that by fully funding the program, legislators would fulfill a promise to families seeking more educational choice and opportunity.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - States should cut the federal cord and end dependency on Washington
In most blue states at least, President Trump's second term is creating a battle over how the states can use federal money. Many Democratic governors are suddenly defending state control and pushing back against Washington's influence. But the reality is that too many states resemble satellites orbiting Washington rather than sovereign governments charting their own course. In 2022, more than half of Louisiana and Alaska's budget came from federal funds. Twenty states receive more than 40 percent of their dollars from Washington. North Dakota is the supposed bright light at just over 22 percent. To regain federalism's footing, states need to reassert more political courage and financial independence from Washington's tentacles. Trump, who found a winning electoral issue on opposing transgender ideology, threatens to pull education funds from states that fail to comply. Trump quickly repositioned the intent of the Title IX law back to its original purpose, calling for only biological females to compete against biological females in athletics. States like Maine strongly oppose the requirement. Rather than reform their reliance on federal dollars, however, states typically respond by suing to keep the federal spigot flowing, reinforcing perpetual dependence over fiscal disentanglement. Some states use federal dollars to mask over budget shortfalls, even using money to indirectly subsidize state tax cuts. Federal aid too often lets states avoid the hard budgeting and governance decisions that should fall to lawmakers. The most obvious example is the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, where the federal government sweetened the pot for states by covering 100 and then 90 percent of the cost for able-bodied, working-age, childless adults. It's important to remember that while states were receiving these 90 percent reimbursement rates from the Feds for this population, another group of Americans were being pushed to the back. The disabled, pregnant women, and children — those for whom Medicaid was originally designed — have had to fight for healthcare access as the result of federal interference. Some states even enshrined expansion into their state constitutions while looking the other way when it comes to unsustainable federal spending levels. It remains unclear whether the federal government will make a serious effort to achieve meaningful Medicaid savings — even if it means limiting coverage for able-bodied but nonworking childless adults. Medicaid expansion has become an elaborate money-making endeavor for states to harness more and more from taxpayers with no skin in the game. 'All these tactics let states rake in massive federal dollars without any state cost and reduce the pressure on state policymakers to responsibly govern and weigh tradeoffs between spending and tax policies,' wrote Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute. Although fraud and abuse under expansion is too lengthy to document, a 2019 Pelican Institute report after expansion in Louisiana noted that 1,672 Medicaid recipients had incomes over $100,000, and at least one household had an income higher than then-Gov. John Bel Edwards (D). A 2025 report from the Foundation for Government Accountability reveals how California exploits funding loopholes to cover illegal immigrants under Medicaid, costing federal taxpayers nearly $10 billion in clear violation of federal law. Disaster relief is another example. So much aid comes from the federal government, often 75 percent when an emergency declaration is made, that it can heavily disincentivize states from building their own rainy-day funds. It also reduces the incentive to invest in infrastructure resilience or take proactive steps to mitigate risk. The result is greater dependence on Washington, rather than increased responsibility. After Hurricane Helene, some federal lawmakers tried to deregulate disaster relief, but as North Carolina's John Locke Foundation warns, 'the fiscally unstable federal government cannot be counted on to be a reliable partner in disaster relief efforts.' Ultimately, given Washington's dysfunction and inability to prioritize spending, the political environment provides not just an opportunity to question federal funds, but lower the political temperature by making more decisions at the state and local level. Federalism is more than a dusty concept to admire from afar. It's a set of common-sense principles to restore trust in government and give people real power over their communities and destiny. The alternative is for Americans to continue watching their states orbit as satellites of expanding federal power, letting Washington's dysfunction pull us further away from self-government. Ray Nothstine is a senior writer and editor and a Future of Freedom Fellow at the State Policy Network. He manages and edits American Habits. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
States should cut the federal cord and end dependency on Washington
In most blue states at least, President Trump's second term is creating a battle over how the states can use federal money. Many Democratic governors are suddenly defending state control and pushing back against Washington's influence. But the reality is that too many states resemble satellites orbiting Washington rather than sovereign governments charting their own course. In 2022, more than half of Louisiana and Alaska's budget came from federal funds. Twenty states receive more than 40 percent of their dollars from Washington. North Dakota is the supposed bright light at just over 22 percent. To regain federalism's footing, states need to reassert more political courage and financial independence from Washington's tentacles. Trump, who found a winning electoral issue on opposing transgender ideology, threatens to pull education funds from states that fail to comply. Trump quickly repositioned the intent of the Title IX law back to its original purpose, calling for only biological females to compete against biological females in athletics. States like Maine strongly oppose the requirement. Rather than reform their reliance on federal dollars, however, states typically respond by suing to keep the federal spigot flowing, reinforcing perpetual dependence over fiscal disentanglement. Some states use federal dollars to mask over budget shortfalls, even using money to indirectly subsidize state tax cuts. Federal aid too often lets states avoid the hard budgeting and governance decisions that should fall to lawmakers. The most obvious example is the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, where the federal government sweetened the pot for states by covering 100 and then 90 percent of the cost for able-bodied, working-age, childless adults. It's important to remember that while states were receiving these 90 percent reimbursement rates from the Feds for this population, another group of Americans were being pushed to the back. The disabled, pregnant women, and children — those for whom Medicaid was originally designed — have had to fight for healthcare access as the result of federal interference. Some states even enshrined expansion into their state constitutions while looking the other way when it comes to unsustainable federal spending levels. It remains unclear whether the federal government will make a serious effort to achieve meaningful Medicaid savings — even if it means limiting coverage for able-bodied but nonworking childless adults. Medicaid expansion has become an elaborate money-making endeavor for states to harness more and more from taxpayers with no skin in the game. 'All these tactics let states rake in massive federal dollars without any state cost and reduce the pressure on state policymakers to responsibly govern and weigh tradeoffs between spending and tax policies,' wrote Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute. Although fraud and abuse under expansion is too lengthy to document, a 2019 Pelican Institute report after expansion in Louisiana noted that 1,672 Medicaid recipients had incomes over $100,000, and at least one household had an income higher than then-Gov. John Bel Edwards (D). A 2025 report from the Foundation for Government Accountability reveals how California exploits funding loopholes to cover illegal immigrants under Medicaid, costing federal taxpayers nearly $10 billion in clear violation of federal law. Disaster relief is another example. So much aid comes from the federal government, often 75 percent when an emergency declaration is made, that it can heavily disincentivize states from building their own rainy-day funds. It also reduces the incentive to invest in infrastructure resilience or take proactive steps to mitigate risk. The result is greater dependence on Washington, rather than increased responsibility. After Hurricane Helene, some federal lawmakers tried to deregulate disaster relief, but as North Carolina's John Locke Foundation warns, 'the fiscally unstable federal government cannot be counted on to be a reliable partner in disaster relief efforts.' Ultimately, given Washington's dysfunction and inability to prioritize spending, the political environment provides not just an opportunity to question federal funds, but lower the political temperature by making more decisions at the state and local level. Federalism is more than a dusty concept to admire from afar. It's a set of common-sense principles to restore trust in government and give people real power over their communities and destiny. The alternative is for Americans to continue watching their states orbit as satellites of expanding federal power, letting Washington's dysfunction pull us further away from self-government. Ray Nothstine is a senior writer and editor and a Future of Freedom Fellow at the State Policy Network. He manages and edits American Habits.
American Press
22-04-2025
- Business
- American Press
Louisiana lawmakers file bill to cap growth of government
Louisiana lawmakers file bill to cap growth of government Published 1:49 pm Tuesday, April 22, 2025 By Nolan McKendry | The Center Square The Louisiana Legislature has introduced a bill to limit the growth of the government, an increasingly popular move among states. In November, the House of Representatives passed an identical bill, but once it arrived to the Senate it was amended significantly, which included various exceptions to the expenditure limit such as funds from the federal government or statutorily dedicated funds. Email newsletter signup The one currently before the Legislature removes those exceptions and more. 'What the bill does is it limits the amount of recurring general fund… that can be appropriated for recurring expenses and restricts the use of the revenues above that limit,' Rep. Phillip Tarver, R-Calcasieu, explained. 'We'll create a government growth limit.' Louisiana's state spending has increased by over $22 billion since 2016, largely driven by health care and educational spending. Those two spending categories have increased in large part due to the state's expansion of Medicaid. Enrollment in Medicaid has increased to 44% of the population and ballooning healthcare spending to 40% of the state budget, according to the Pelican Institute. Spending on education has risen. Through the Minimum Foundation Program, spending on education has grown even as student enrollment declines, bringing the state's spending on education to over $11 billion. 'Louisiana's budget is highly constrained by a variety of constitutional and statutory requirements that earmark significant portions of state revenue for specific purposes. This limits lawmakers' discretion in allocating funds to address current priorities or fiscal emergencies,' the Pelican Institute wrote. 'Nearly one-quarter of the state's tax revenues are automatically set aside for specific purposes before lawmakers even begin drafting the budget.' The growth limit would be calculated using the previous year's general fund appropriation as a base, multiplied by a growth factor that reflects population changes and inflation — specifically, the Consumer Price Index and medical care inflation. If revenues exceed the cap, they could only be used for non-recurring expenses, such as infrastructure or paying down debt. 'The growth limit cannot exceed the expenditure limit,' Tarver said. 'And if the revenues exceed the growth limit, but are under the expenditure limit, the revenues can only be appropriated for non-recurring expenditures.' The new rule wouldn't apply to one-time or emergency spending, and certain expenditures would be excluded from the cap. But any recurring revenue collected above the new growth limit would be off-limits for ongoing expenses and could only be used for nonrecurring purposes like infrastructure projects or paying down debt. The proposal also includes a mechanism for lawmakers to change the growth limit through a two-thirds vote. The bill advanced out of committee without objection and without any major amendment. Featured Local Savings
