…and a tangent on tangents

I’m not commenting on the main text of the article for various reasons, but I did want to comment on two things from here.

First, this passage:

A key component of the Bush plan for Medicaid is a three-year reduction on the percentage of state provider tax that qualifies for federal matching funds. West Virginia, along with many other states, imposed provider taxes in order to draw down more federal matching funds.

House Speaker Bob Kiss, D-Raleigh, questioned whether the proposal is constitutional, since it amounts to the federal government usurping the taxing authority of the states.

“What I see here is the federal government is telling West Virginia what its tax rate structure can be,” he said.

Wha…?

Suppose my friend Jim is giving money to a charity, and I tell him that I’ll match whatever he gives, up to $1,000. I make this offer annually, and then realize I can’t afford it, so I tell him that, this year, I can only match $500. That doesn’t change what Jim can give.

House Speaker Kiss knows that saying the Feds won’t match as much money has nothing to do with saying what West Virginia tax code can or can’t be. It might affect the motivation, but that’s it… and that is perfectly within the Federal government’s power.

Second, what the heck do the last three paragraphs have to do with the rest of this story? I thought I go off on tangents…