Which I guess leads to the point I wanted to ask about, which is that if you are essentially using the logic of this bill for the post-5-year period, why not use it for the pre-5-year period also? Or to state it another way, you said in your statement that it made no sense to you that people wanted to give flexibility to the States; they would not allow the States that flexibility after a 5-year period to spend the voucher. Doesn't that same logic apply to the pre-5-year period? In other words, shouldn't the State flexibility remain for the pre-5-year period as well as for the post-5-year period? Why should the Federal Government come in and direct the States to do it?
Judd Gregg: “Which I guess leads to the point I wanted to ask about, which is that if you are essentially using the logic of this…”
Editor's note · Context
Questioning the logic of state flexibility in a bill regarding funding periods.
Share
More from Judd Gregg
I would suggest that on issues that involve all Americans, where pretty much everybody is affected, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and tax reform, that if you push forward in a partisan way, at least 50 percent, maybe a little less…
I subscribe to Senator Gregg's emphasis on value-based reimbursement. I think we're making progress on Medicare. It's not hopeless.
But there is no question that if you are going to address this issue in a way that has substantive impact on the future of our Nation, the prosperity of our children, and our standard of living, it is the second 10 years, and the third 10…
It makes no sense whatsoever, and it's apparently--certainly makes no sense for the same people to be urgently arguing to deal with climate change and then either quiet or urgently opposed to nuclear power.