Rainy day funds. Yes or No?
Should the government have stabilization funds?
Should the government have stabilization funds, known as rainy-day accounts?
In tough economic times, there's often a debate about whether the government should spend more money to provide assistance or cut spending to reduce the size of government. From a conservative standpoint, reducing government spending during a recession is essential for shrinking the size of government. Why should the government continue to spend freely while families are forced to tighten their belts?
The legislature recently passed H685, a law creating a Medicaid Stabilization Fund. The IDFC debated against this new savings account. Why? The state already has several reserve funds with over $1.2 billion saved. Creating another fund to save extra money isn’t necessary when that money could help struggling taxpayers.
Creating a Medicaid stabilization fund might make fixing the program's problems harder. Medicaid spending has sharply risen by over 90%, from $2.45 billion in FY19 to $4.68 billion in FY24. Rather than promoting necessary reforms during challenging periods, this fund might act as a crutch, maintaining the status quo instead of driving genuine improvements. Government tends to lean on funds like these rather than making significant changes, which can lead to more waste and overspending.
Here’s Senator Brian Lenney, D13, Nampa, making the point.
While the government stockpiles money in these funds, families still struggle financially. Shouldn't that extra money go back to taxpayers instead of sitting in government accounts?
Idaho legislators should carefully consider creating additional funds like the Medicaid stabilization fund, especially given the state's existing financial reserves. Priority should be placed on reducing the burden on taxpayers and keeping the government small.
Upholding conservative principles means reducing government spending, ensuring fiscal responsibility, and preserving individual liberties within the framework of limited government. The Idaho Freedom Caucus is fighting for these values, which are essential for creating a stable and prosperous society that benefits all Idahoans.
______________________________
Here are some ways you can help the Idaho Freedom Caucus:
Get to know these public members and support their work. Back Row, left to right: Sen. Glenneda Zuiderveld–District 24; Rep. Tony Wisniewski–District 5; Rep. Joe Alfieri–District 4; Rep. Mike Kingsley–District 7; Rep. Dale Hawkins–District 2; Sen. Scott Herndon–District 1. Front Row, left to right: Rep. Jacyn Gallagher-District 9; Rep. Heather Scott (Co-Chair)–District 2; Rep. Elaine Price–District 4; Sen. Tammy Nichols (Co-Chair)–District 10; Sen. Brian Lenney–District 13; Sen. Cindy Carlson–District 7.
Share this Substack to help others stay informed on what’s happening.
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook.
Donate to our Idaho Freedom Caucus PAC.
Thanks for joining us in the fight to keep Idaho free. Idaho is worth defending!
I remember when people were responsible for their own health! I'm "old" - so that was long ago.. Today, I see people in grocery stores stuffing their carts with white bread; soft drinks, potato chip, cool whip, etc., all the junk food in the Store. Not even one healthy food item. They are almost universally grossly overweight. They give themselves diseases by their atrocious food choices, get sick, and demand that the "government" pay their medical bills. 400 pound women on dialysis. duhh - all that junk food she stuffed herself with. A return to personal responsibility would be a good thing.
The short answer is: NO. Rainy day funds are life savers for individuals and families, but but for governments, they are slush funds taken from taxation which means they'd end up only being an added burden on the hard working Idahoan.