What's Worse--Entitlements or Ignorance About What They Are?
I've been complaining to friends for a while that it seems like many people don't understand what "entitlements" are. Many people seem to think that entitlements are solely welfare and similar programs. They don't understand that America's biggest entitlement burdens are social security and Medicare.
This letter to the editor in Sunday's Clarion-Ledger confirmed my suspicion:
Apparently this is it. It seems, the greatest country in the history is about to fall. Just at the pinnacle of its greatness, America is nearing collapse because we are giving it all away.
Shocking reports reveal that more than 50 percent of Americans are receiving entitlements. I could understand 10 percent because, rightfully so, Americans should be sensitive to the underprivileged, and infirm, but there can be no doubt the 50 percent includes the lazy and the deadbeats as well.
When did it become a source of pride to receive entitlements? In the old days, people hid the fact that they needed government assistance. The stigma of the freeloader has been removed and the government has gone to a welfare credit card.
Liberals decry that conservatives are trying to make the word entitlement a dirty word. What solution is offered by the liberals? To attack the most productive citizens in America.
In my mind, entitlements is a dirty word, and as a working middle-class, conservative who never received any entitlement whatsoever. my opinion is that many of that 50 percent have contributed nothing to the system, and, therefore, are entitled to nothing.
This guy clearly does not understand that entitlements include social security and Medicare. But even if he did get it, he would still be wrong because these programs aren't "giving it away." You have to pay into the system in order to qualify.
The following chart shows U.S. budget expenditures for 2010:
The C-L letter writer thinks that "entitlements" are only the 16% orange category of this chart. But 42% of the budget is social security and Medicare. The following chart shows the projections for these costs:
If you are a "working middle-class conservative", the entitlements of social security and Medicare are not "dirty words." They are programs that you have paid into that will provide retirement benefits and access to health care when you are old.
How much do you want to bet that the man who wrote this letter receives entitlements?
One thing this guy does get right is that America's future entitlement obligations are a huge problem. To be blunt, they can't be met. Especially with the Country spending trillions of dollars serving as the world's policeman. And, not coincidentally, sustaining a huge defense budget that makes defense contractors rich. Some would even say that making select companies money was the primary reason for America's war in Iraq.
Entitlements are a huge issue that impact everyone. America must address the issue by, among other things, drastically cutting the defense budget. But the first step in the process should be educating people like this guy what entitlement are.
"If you are a "working middle-class conservative", the entitlements of social security and Medicare are not "dirty words." They are programs that you have paid into that will provide retirement benefits and access to health care when you are old."
"One thing this guy does get right is that America's future entitlement obligations are a huge problem. To be blunt, they can't be met."
Therefore, there are those whose taxes will not provide them with government retirement and healthcare benefits (mine). Accordingly, I consider the idea of my wages or value earned being converted without any benefit for me, less than desirable (a "dirty word" I suppose will do).
"But even if he did get it, he would still be wrong because these programs aren't "giving it away." You have to pay into the system in order to qualify."
I agree the letter writer didn't understand the enormity of the governmental leviathan that comprises "entitlements." However, the idea that people must "pay" into the system to qualify doesn't sit right with me. First, assuming you're correct, how is it that someone who qualifies for Medicaid in their respective state (say someone with low assets, single parent, etc.) "pays" into the system? Ceding the remote possibility that payment from such indigents actually occurs, the proportion would be so miniscule as to make it trivial. Thus, "working middle-class conservatives" are perhaps upset at the idea that their money is being converted to fund those who cannot pay for themselves- all the while being told via "smoke and mirrors" that you'll be thankful for the amount of your money that will help fund your retirement/healthcare. Unfortunately, and as you've admitted, those obligations won't be met. Our money goes into the black box and doesn't come out.
If I'm paying for an obligation for an action or service to occur at some future date, and that action or service won't be performed by the other party, can I get my money back? Unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, constructive trust, etc. all seem like ideas that would come to your mind if a client were to walk through your door and utter the aforementioned question.
I write all of this with a looming caveat in mind, i.e. I have no qualms with my wages being used to help those who are in such dire circumstances that they cannot help themselves. Those who are victims of happenstance, that work hard and it still isn't enough. Yet, abuse of Medicaid in particular, government housing, etc. is unacceptable. The dependence that it breeds is what is so loathsome. Additionally, the manifestation of LBJ's "Great Society" has become untenable and rightfully so. What incentive do we provide when people are branded with a number upon birth and are told it will "secure" their retirement? If I were told I would receive monies tomorrow regardless of my working for them, "oh the places [I would] go."