Okay, another one is misleading. What I should say is "The first one bites the dust."
Arizona has become the first State to eliminate it's children's health insurance program (CHIP or SCHIP). The state legislature cited budget shortfalls and a "fiscal crisis" led to the decision to eliminate the program that served "38,000 children living in families with incomes between 100% and 200% of the federal poverty level ($22,000 to $44,000 for a family of four)."
As with other states using a similar program (i.e. Utah), states only pay about 35% of the cost needed for coverage, while the other 65% comes from the federal government. To me, one of the most interesting comments came from the Governor:
"As an Arizonan, as a mother, and as a person who feels great compassion for the vulnerable and less fortunate," she said, "it is only with great reluctance that I advocate a number of deep reductions in funding. . . . As governor, I have a duty to preserve State government's fiscal integrity and to ensure Arizona's long-term health."
I see contradictions throughout this statement. How does compassion for the vulnerable and less fortunate lead to cutting programs that help the vulnerable and less fortunate? Does Arizona's long-term health only include fiscal health and not physical health?
I hope for a land were people talk-the-talk, and then walk-the-walk. Maybe it's my "socialist" heart coming out, but I hope that other States don't follow the "responsible" move just made by Arizona.