Medicaid and Defense - Follow the Money
Comment by reader Joe Pickering in Bangor follows in this blog*
This blog links to a Washington Post chart displaying how Medicaid beneficiaries are distributed across the demographics of people who are elderly, blind/disabled, children, adults, foster care children and a category labeled "unknown". The data shows shows a decline in beneficiary reimbursements compared to the numbers who receive benefits, with the only spike being for the blind/disabled.
Okay, I'll get some dander flying here! Meanwhile, there's no comparable chart showing how defense spending is allocated. People employed by defense contracts (this isn't a judgement, but for the sake of comparison) are like Medicaid beneficiaries, because both populations receive revenues from tax monies.
Moreover, both the Medicaid and the National Defense programs employ people.
Additionally, every dollar in defense spending spins off economic security for families who rely on paychecks to earn their livings. Every dollars in state Medicaid money spent to help beneficiaries are matched by 3 federal dollars, money poured into local economies.
So the point of this blog is this: Everyone deserves to earn a livable wage - my opinion is for comparison purposes. Nonetheless, in my mind, it's hypocritical for people who earn their livable wages from defense spending projects to turn around and criticize people on Medicaid.
The Washington Post needs to publish a chart showing how defense spending is allocated and how many people are employed as a result.
Medicaid or Defense - we need to care for our vulnerable populations; we also need to fund defense for security purposes and public safety. But, follow the same revenue streams to fund both. Yes, both are a good use of our investment in paying taxes.
Comment from Joe:
"Santorum who doesn't deserve to be dog catcher was saying that Defense is only 16% on the budget and that the 'entitlements' essentially need to be targeted....we are actually spending over a trillion dollars to impoverish the nation...Mitt is worse, he wants 100,000 more troops in Afghanistan...I suggest he go first .....and a 50% increase in the Navy which is already bigger than the next 13 Navies combined...by the way do you remember your husband Richard saying...how are they going to pay for that?? (my answer - 'yes!')..."