I mean, they're housing and guaranteeing employment, food, and healthcare to a chunk of the population residing in the state. If we had any other jobs program like that, we'd label it a government benefit I'd say....(thinking Roosevelt's new deal public works program for instance).
Generic ballot
- Thread starter destriero
- Start date
I mean, they're housing and guaranteeing employment, food, and healthcare to a chunk of the population residing in the state. If we had any other jobs program like that, we'd label it a government benefit I'd say....(thinking Roosevelt's new deal public works program for instance).
They are? Maybe to soldiers and immediate family, but that's it. Many of those soldiers aren't from the state in the first place and frequently rotate.
I think as long as they're in the state it has to be accounted for, after all, someone that rotates out of his post will likely be replaced by someone else, so that particular "benefit" will always be there.
I don't see why it would at all. You can argue that the state sees economic activity by putting a base in a particular location, but only active troops and their families get the housing allowances, etc. A poor family sees nothing from any of this. It's not like SNAP benefits, or HUD, or medicaid, or benefits paid to the poor.
Should we include money paid to Germany for Ramstein AFB? Of course not.
The other thing you have to remove (if it is included) is social security benefits. These are benefits paid into the program that are simply being returned. It's not welfare, and if a state has more retirees (because of favorable tax laws) it's doesn't mean their getting an inordinate amount of federal $$.