Some left-of-center commentators have criticized U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann for opposing expansion of the Medicaid program while her husband’s mental health clinic takes Medicaid money.

Timothy Carney‘s latest Washington Examiner article demonstrates why the criticism is misplaced:

Liberal journalists often become unusually unhinged around the likes of Bachmann and Sarah Palin, and so most specious criticisms of them should be ignored. But the Left uses this “conservative-benefits-from-government-program-she-opposes” in so many instances that it needs to be addressed.

It’s ridiculous to say no one can criticize an unfair advantage he’s received. Are white males who have benefited from societal racism and sexism permanently barred from fighting for equality?

Admittedly, the case becomes more complex when the benefits are not so passively received. For instance, I oppose student loan subsidies and the home mortgage interest deduction. Still, without much guilt, I fill out the forms to receive them. My excuse: These subsidies have distorted the market, applying upward pressure to tuition and home prices. I don’t intend to impose on my family the negative effects of the subsidy (higher prices) but not the positive effects.

Medicaid payments are the same sort of thing. Medicaid leads many poor people to go without private insurance, and it also displaces some private charities that would otherwise help the poor get health care. This leaves Marcus Bachmann with three options: turn away Medicaid patients (as many health care facilities do), eat the cost of treating these patients, or take Medicaid payments.

Two other government subsidies benefiting the Bachmann family — a $27,000 grant to train workers at the clinic, and $250,000 in farm subsidies to her in-laws’ farm which is entrusted to her and her husband — would require more explanation if her husband or mother-in-law were the candidate railing against government spending.

But the bottom line is still this: If Bachmann is opposing subsidies she receives, doesn’t that indicate a principled stance, rather than hypocrisy? The true hypocrisy would be if she opposed all subsidies except farm subsidies and training grants for health clinics.