Welfare cuts and military vanity projects reveal the madness of America’s fiscal priorities

In my last article, I asked: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

I want to continue the conversation. However, this time I have asked “real people” the next part of that question: “After six months, is there a significant difference in your quality of life?”

I asked that question of people living in rural and urban areas of the country. Although their words were different (mostly four or five letters), the response was the same.

The 40-year-old who was born with special needs is worried about how they will pay for their upcoming dialysis treatment after the Republican Congress voted to cut Medicaid.

The 62-year-old, who is not eligible for social security payment for three more years, works two part-time jobs to cover basic expenses, worried about how they will be able to buy food for the month after “snap benefits” are reduced.

They rely on their income and government assistance to help them. Employees who work for government agencies and are being laid off are concerned about their mortgage and rent expenses.

The recent flooding in Texas revealed the economic cost and the loss of more than 100 lives (young and old) when policy makers don’t consider the human cost when they use a blow torch to kill an ant.

These changes are made under the guise of “reducing budgets”, but the explanation and real-life consequences do not support this thesis.

If the administration truly wants to reduce the budget, it may start by leaving the new names of military bases in place and not requiring the names of insurrectionists to once again brand military facilities around the country.

I recently visited Fort Cavazos (formerly Fort Hood) in Texas. Someone with knowledge of the financial implications of the reversal said: “It cost us about $2million to make the name change and just as everyone was used to the new name, we’re going to spend at least that amount, and maybe more, to go backwards. If the $2million is indeed the amount to convert back to the old, and at least seven military bases around the country are subject to the reversion, it will cost us $14million.”

Hmmm… how many people can we restore to the Medicaid rolls? How many government employees can we re-hire? Is it possible to continue snap benefits for the 62-year-old working two part-time jobs?

If we save $14 million, will that help keep public broadcast stations available to rural communities, for whom that’s their only means of getting unfiltered information?

So, what does six months and one day feel like for Americans who do not have billionaire status? I’ll continue to ask real people who are being negatively impacted by these policies about their quality of life.

The 40-year-old who needs dialysis said they may not live to see another six months.

So, I’m telling her story and pray that common sense, empathy for “the least of these”, and a commitment to the oath of office will quickly emerge and guide their conscience to stop the assault on their constituents.

________________

Dr Pat Spearman served in the Nevada State Senate for 12 years and previously held the position of President Pro Tempore in the State Senate.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk