Entitlements vs. Rights, Part 2

The desirability of a social net as a concept is not disputed.  Only the callous can ignore the survival needs of others.  Yet there have been socially destructive consequences of the social net in practice.  (I’m referring to welfare, not Social Security.)  The expression “sense of entitlement” is frequently heard.  We all know it exists.  People who seemingly believe that their mere existence entitles them to receive support from the government (aka taxpayers).  And we, as the broader society, enable that attitude.

Many view the poor as the victims of society or the economy.  Given that attitude, providing care for the downtrodden is a mandated responsibility which transforms a need into an entitlement.  Independently of a (uniformly liberal) victimization perspective, of course, there are people who legitimately need assistance to survive circumstances beyond their control.  Prior to the development of government welfare programs, aid was provided by community charities, churches, etc., neighbors and family members.  Because the assistance came from local sources, knowledge of the recipient was usually personal.  The undeserving were excluded.  And certainly those who did receive benefits did not relish the need to rely on the generosity of others.  Self-reliance had long been such a pronounced part of the American psyche, that the receipt of charity, while certainly appreciated by those in need, was an embarrassing event to be avoided. 

For those able to avoid that predicament, they had no choice but to make their own way in the world.  They had rights, indeed, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – but not to a handout.  But human nature will cause man to alter his behavior in accordance with changing circumstances.  It’s a safe assumption to say that we are inclined to take the path of least resistance.

So if a person is deficient in qualities of industriousness, and social inhibitions are minimal or nonexistent, would it be surprising if he sought desired assistance which was needed only because he lacked such a quality? 

Is it any wonder, in light of human nature, that aid for the less fortunate so often becomes a curse to the recipient’s character?

We as a society have long been too compassionate in the short term by making access to governmental aid too easy. 

Government aid, as distinct from private charity, is less personal and as such, a socially induced inhibition against seeking it is reduced.  In fact, there are occasional publicity campaigns encouraging people “in need” to apply!

To the extent society fosters a sense of entitlement, it detracts from the appeal of self-reliance and increases the portion of the citizenry dependent upon the government for support.
What can be done?

Liberals, obviously view government solutions as the first – not last – resort in addressing social problems.  Conservatives disagree.  We believe that people and private organizations (commercial and charitable) are where we start.

Take the food stamp program.  Why is it necessary?  Soup kitchens, food pantries and the like are abundant.  Is the justification for its existence that people will starve without it?

I have faith in the generous nature of Americans. If there is a need, we will rise to the occasion. And to the extent that government stops funding “welfare entitlements” with our money, we’ll have more money with which to be generous.

Is There a Difference between an Entitlement and a Right?

Random House Webster’s College Dictionary defines entitlements as:  “the state of being entitled, the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program”.

The term ‘right’ cannot be so narrowly defined since its meaning depends upon the context within which it is used (property ownership, true, direction, opportunity).

But for many in today’s America, the two words are politically synonymous.  An entitlement to government largesse is a right.

It has not always been so.  The Bill of Rights focused on the individual’s right to be protected from the government not to be provided for by it.  Americans prided themselves on their personal independence and frontier spirit.  Our national credo then could be termed “rugged individualism”.

And such, broadly, was the American way until well into the 20^th century.

Government’s role was rather tightly proscribed.  Protect the individual’s right to do.  With the advent of the New Deal, in the 1930s, the political culture changed.  This is illustrated by the popularity of Franklin Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms proclaimed in his 1941 State of the Union speech, one of which “freedom from want”.  The others were traditional freedoms of religion and speech and a vague ‘freedom from fear’.  If the government is to guarantee freedom from want, it can only do so be establishing a right to receive government aid.  And so, a taxpayer-supported safety net became a formally recognized national policy. 

Social Security, established in 1935, became its bedrock.  Private sector workers and their employers are taxed to provide benefits to those who are “entitled” by law.  Social Security payments, accordingly, are fairly described as ‘earned entitlement’ (leave aside the question whether there is a close correlation between payroll taxes paid and benefits received).

Since then, welfare programs such as Medicaid, Aid to Dependent Children and food stamps have also become embedded parts of our established society.  They are properly called ‘unearned entitlements’ stemming from one’s economic condition (i.e. welfare).

Look where we are now:

          *Since 1950, welfare spending, including both State and Federal has risen 2600% (in inflation-adjusted dollars).

          *Exploding Social Security and Medicare expenditures have garnered public attention by climbing about 210% in the past decade.  But welfare costs rose nearly 300%.

So how did we get from there to here? 

                                            [To be continued.]

How the Left Handles Defeat

Wisconsin Governor Walker’s 53%-46% recall triumph stunned the Left.

The Governor infuriated unions and their Democratic Party allies when he successfully championed restrictions on public employee unions shortly after taking office in January 2011.  In response, they attempted to paralyze the State Senate from taking supportive action by depriving the legislative body of a quorum and conducting raucous sit-ins both in and outside Senate chambers.  When those tactics came to naught, recall petition signatures were collected forcing a vote last Tuesday which, to say the least, did not turn out as its proponents had hoped.

Interestingly, Governor Walker’s margin of victory over Milwaukee Mayor Barrett exceeded his electoral performance in 2010.  (The recall was a re-match of the 2010 election.)

To neutral observers, that wasn’t surprising since the state’s unemployment rate has dropped one percent since Walker assumed office, a 3.6 billion deficit was eliminated and a small budget surplus is projected for next year.

But that’s not how the Left saw it.  MSNBC network, proud of its allegiance to that perspective, was typical. 

Ed Schultz, host of a weeknight commentary show, lamented the disparity in expenditures in the campaign of 7 – 1 in favor of Governor Walker.  Rachel Madow complained that recall forces blurred their message by discussing other issues besides the need to save government unions.  And others fingered the weakness of their candidate – he’d lost two statewide races previously.

In sum, the Left ignored the possibility that their policies might have had some responsibility for the outcome.

On a personal level, it’s hard not to sympathize with such reactions.  No one likes to lose. 

But the attitude is hardly mature.  In the context of politics, such responses are excuses, not explanations.  The reason for the results, I suggest, is that voters were satisfied with the job being done by the Governor.  He not only promised to rein in government spending, he did so. 

The lesson is that the public does care about out-of-control liberal spending and will support politicians committed to doing something about it.  Of course the Left prefers to ignore that lesson and so they continue to trumpet their support for the expansion of big government and the spending that must accompany it despite the public’s opposition.

We conservatives, looking forward to November, are delighted by the bullheadedness being displayed by our foes.

Big Gulp vs. Big Government

Late night comedians and others are sharing derisive laughter over NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s effort to quench residents’ thirst for sugared beverages.  As a good liberal only trying to do good, he wants to down-size (16 oz limit) fast food beverage cups.  The impetus is the undeniable fact that high sugar intake contributes to obesity which increases an individual’s health risk (undoubtedly).

It is indeed amusing that a big city mayor would find time to focus on the beverage capacity of a soda cup (free refills are not to be proscribed just yet).  One would think that the dismal state of New York City’s educational system would be a higher priority than soda pop consumption.

Yet, humor aside, isn’t Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal rather symptomatic of the left’s attitude toward human behavior?  If it is viewed as undesirable, pass a law against it. 

I rather doubt that there are many people who do not recognize that sugar is loaded with calories.  Nonetheless, this knowledge does not deter everyone from its excessive consumption.

So what is to be done?

A conservative is likely to say that freedom means the right to make wrong choices.  But the individual so choosing is personally responsible for the consequences.  If that means higher health insurance premiums for the obese coke drinker, for instance, he brought it on himself.

A liberal is prone to distrust an individual’s judgment in general.  The individual, accordingly, must be guided (even forced) to do what is known (by the liberal protector) to be in that person’s self-interest.  And society – you and me – is responsible for the consequences.

Obamacare is a direct descendant of this nanny-state mentality.