Part III of ACA post

Medicaid

The issue here is that the government has expanded Medicaid and is forcing states to expand their coverage without a commensurate expansion in funding.

How it works - in some cases the federal government believes itself limited and can't force people or states to do certain things.  So what they do to get around this is offer the states money if the states follow their rules.  The ACA law expanded Medicaid, and some states find the new regulations much too costly, but if they don't adhere to the new rules, the government will discontinue all funds.

In the past, courts have ruled that for small amounts, these behaviors are constitutional.  They suggested, however, that there is a line between goading and coercive.  If it becomes coercive, it has moved into unconstitutionality.  Obviously, that line has never been defined.

In principle I agree with there being a distinction between the two.  The federal government should be allowed to push certain behaviors in the national interest, but it shouldn't be able to undermine the tenth amendment.

Constitutionally, however, even for small amounts, the behavior is shady.  It's not explicit but it feels like it's against the framers' intent.  I wouldn't say it's unconstitutional, and I regret that because it offers the federal government a way to force states to do anything they want.

There's a missing element to the Constitution that would help solve this problem.  It doesn't say which level of government people's taxes belong to.  This Medicaid discussion presumes that all tax dollars naturally belong to the federal government and then they can redistribute them to the states.  If the Constitution stipulated how much money the federal government was entitled to take, then they would no longer have the freedom to blackmail the states.

What happens if a state's taxes and the federal taxes combine to be over 100%?  Is that possible?  Who gets paid first?