Let’s begin with a definition. Wikipedia defines 'entitlement' as "... a guarantee of access to
benefits because of rights, or by agreement through law." I like that
definition – it is general. I signed a lease agreement entitling the landlord
to a monthly payment. I am entitled to various things including a toilet that functions.
We enter into explicit and implicit contracts all the time. I pay taxes to the City of Bloomington and
feel entitled to some degree of police and fire protection.
I see that I am putting
some of you to sleep so let’s move on to a discussion of thermodynamics. Just
kidding. While the definition of the word entitlement is pretty boring it gets
a lot more heated when we start using it as a curse word. You are a lousy
entitlement. You are dumber than two entitlements. No, that's not what I mean
either. Somewhere along the line we used to classify government spending as
expenditures on goods, services, and transfers. A government transfer is
defined as a payment from the government’s budget to an individual. The word
transfer literally meant the government was not paying for a good (Boeing
aircraft) or a service (a teacher provides a service of education). Instead it
was transferring money to an individual because a law provided that persons
should receive money from the government. Many of these transfers were in the
nature of welfare legislation which provided that people meeting eligibility
requirements of the laws would receive payments from the government because
they were old, sick, poor, etc.
Some people interpret the
word transfer payment as a transfer of money from the rich to the poor. But
that is not the real meaning. For example, any time the government pays for a
good or a service, we don’t call that a transfer because we are taking money
from the rich (or anyone else) and giving it to Boeing or Larry’s Wonderful
Consulting Company. So why would you call it a transfer when the government
took money from some people and gave it to the poor, old, and sick. All
government spending is the same in the sense that tax payers are asked to give
up money so it can go to people who provide goods and services and to people
who are eligible for government assistance.
Notice that all this
government spending is guided by the legislated laws of the land which
presumably are consistent with the Constitution. While you might not agree with
government spending on any particular program no one type of spending is any
less legitimate than another. So maybe you don’t like defense spending. Or
maybe you are very much against your local government paying a consultant to
estimate the economic impact of owl habitats. You might think that the
government pays poor people too much money. Whatever, if you don’t like it you
can vote for people who will make legislation that is more compatible with your
views. Until that time, it is what it is.
Still awake? Sorry. Do
some pushups and drink a Cass. Maybe that will help.
Somehow the above terminology got sidetracked. Somehow we started
using the word entitlement. Notice that in the strict sense of the definition,
this is not a bad word to use for any kind of government spending. The strict
sense of the word implies that legislation requires responsibilities of the
parties. In the case of government spending a defense bill approves money to
Boeing. Another bill allocates funding be spent on various service
providers. Another bill sets funding for Medicare. These bills create an
entitlement just like a lease creates an entitlement. There are good leases and
bad leases. There are good bills and bad bills. But notice that citizens are
entitled to what the bills support. To say that spending on Medicare is an
entitlement means absolutely nothing. Spending on battleships, office machines,
soldiers, policemen, teachers, poverty and social security are all entitlements.
So how did we get from there to here? Congressmen shout about
entitlements as if they were the expenses of government employees on lavish
hotels, illegal drugs and prostitutes. Entitlement has become the latest curse
word to throw at liberals. Just like millionaires and billionaires, throwing
out these words is meant to denigrate a group of people. It stereotypes and
misleads. Millionaires and billionaires is often meant to indicate that high
income high wealth people don’t do their fair share for the country. Entitlement
conjures up an image of laggards who demand excessive support from the
government to not have to work or be responsible citizens.
My liberal friends hated what I said last week because they felt I
was being unfair to them. Sure they want millionaires and billionaires to pay
more taxes but my liberal friends don’t use these words in the hateful manner
in which I alleged last week. But for every one of you there is another Democrat
who intends the worst stereotype. This week my conservative friends will be
howling mad. They don’t have this awful image of people who receive
entitlements – they will explain they are just saying that the current laws
don’t serve their ends. But for every one of you, there is a Republican who
holds and expresses these negative stereotypes of people who receive government
transfer payments.
Thanks to a good retirement system and personal saving I am both a
millionaire and a receiver of entitlements. So I get personally offended when I
hear people use those words in obvious negative tones. I started working at the
age of 18 and have been paying into the Social Security and Medicare systems
ever since then. I don’t feel entitled to anything except in the same way I
feel entitled to a good toilet. The law says that by virtue of reaching an old
age, by making those payments for nearly 50 years and having to pee 12 times a night I should receive these
government expenditures. I personally don’t give a hoot about moral debates
that might argue whether or not I am entitled to these payments. I am entitled
because the law says I am entitled. That’s all there is to it. If a hobo is
similarly entitled to a rent subsidy, a food coupon, or an outright payment, so
be it. If the law says it, then they are entitled.
So what am I saying? I am saying what I say over and over. This
use of colorful stereotypical words and phrases is like yelling unkind names at
the basketball team that just beat you. Maybe it makes you feel better but the
truth is what you need to do is huddle with the coach and figure out why you
lost and come up with a better strategy for winning the next game. Calling
names is not only useless but it might actually harm you by making the other
guys want to beat you even more. You Democrats please stop talking about millionaires
and billionaires. You Republicans stop moaning about entitlements. What you
both want is relief from this horrible economic malaise. The only way to
accomplish that is being realistic, open and objective about the source of our
current problems and work to create majorities that will support programs that
directly create remediation. Pointing fingers and demonizing the rich or poor
just ain’t going to cut it.
OK All-righty then:
ReplyDeleteLaws are passed and have been doing so for 200+ years. some have reached the sunset phase. Often the Congressmen who passed the laws did not think through the unintended consequences or have permitted these laws to be useless because times and the reasons for the laws have changed.
Social Security: This is not socialism. Anyone who has ever been to a socialistic country knows better. It was meant to be a forced saving program to serve as a supplement to the normal savings program. People were not supposed to work past 62 and for the most part were supposed to die at 72. That changed. People are living well into their 80’s and this will further increase. People’s savings and pensions have been demised due to significant portfolio reductions and an erratic economy. The X ,Y and Millennial generations demographics are enough to support all of the retiring Boomers. Lastly, Congress has raided the Social Security account in an indirect way and thereby “transferred or allocated “ funds to plug other holes in the Government’s Debt. DR. D – I am with you...give me the funds I put in plus interest and I will be happy.
Medicare: This fund is similar to SS and was intended to supplement health plans for the retired.
Both SS and MC are also used for other categories of people. Dr. D Give me what I already put in plus interest and I will be OK and I will try to keep myself healthy.
ObamaCare: Originally this was an attempt to reduce the increases in healthcare cost to all people. 3,000 pages later it turned out to be a partial Medicare for non retired people.
In a socialist country every body gets a paycheck and this reduces the incentive to work. Everyone get free healthcare or close to it and this reduces the incentive to stay healthy. Cuba is a socialist country and other than the elite everyone is treated equal and resources are evenly distributed. You doo not want to retire in Cuba. On the other hand China, Vietnam and several South American countries are in some form of Socialism but all have capitalistic economies. None are true Marxist.
The US cannot become a true socialist country unless the government nationalizes the sources of income for the people or charges them so much in taxes that they would rather the government had their business anyway. That would take a revolution. But the number and types of entitlements are growing rapidy as our economy has suffered very slow growth and high unemployment. It is very simple, a healthy capitalistic country is not a model for socialism but an unhealthy country is.
What Dr. Williams had to say about the most famous "entitlement:"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/gov-perry-s-right-about-social-security.html
Jim properly describes how SS has been presented to the American Public and Fuzzy's link reveals the truth behind the smoke and mirrows. Conservatives are tired of money being witheld "for the tax payers welfare" and transfered to Non-documented, illegally residing aliens who file Tax returns with Tax payer ID numbers so they can obtain $1,000 Child Care payments for each child. This is fraud and not an entitlement, yet the IRS does not see this as a priority. http://video.foxnews.com/v/1778464841001/rpt--widespread-fraud-in-taxpayer-id-program/
ReplyDeleteDanny, thanks for bringing together the posts of Fuzzy and James. I don't disagree with you but one of my points is that we should expand our thinking beyond what we call "entitlements" to everything. We need to do that in a way that focuses on government waste and inefficiency as well as corruption -- without emotionally loaded name calling. To me it makes no sense to move forward without reforming medicare, medicaid, and social security. But I would not stop there. I think every dollar of government spending needs to be part of the mix. We don't have enough money to waste it whether it is spending on food stamps or the military. There is so much name calling now they never seem to get around to the real work of finding ways to accomplish government goals at the least cost.
DeleteSince we're on the subject, just for fun: http://townhall.com/columnists/nealboortz/2012/09/05/the_risk_of_being_poor
ReplyDeleteThanks Fuzzy and Dr. D and Danny: Reform in how government spends? The system started to get corrupted way back in Jackson's administration in which he called it the spoils system. Next came numerous presidents piling it on and before long friends of the politicians and their projects became entitlements.. Today government workers ( think GSA) think they are entitled to benefits and perks far beyond the private sector. I already gave this example once but here it is more apropos.
ReplyDeleteStimulus: DOE $1.7B to “create” jobs and “save” energy. The word save was added later when insufficient jobs were created. Florida’s Share was $65M. When it reached Florida 10% was already used to “save” Federal jobs. As it passed through Florida another 25% was taken to “save” and create state jobs.....both were temporary ..or so we were told. When the cash reached the counties another 25% was used to “ create and save jobs”. Then the cities got their share and another 25% was gone. What was left was used to caulk the windows of the city and county buildings. This same process was standard for all agencies. So Dr. D please explain where the stimulus was? What was it stimulating? Now did anyone with a pea for a brain believe that that was going to change our structural employment problem?
Going into the future, those government workers plus those rewarded for supporting the President in the election (thing GE who got $250M of the DOE funds before they were released to supply and install smart boxes in Dade county on 30,000 homes). Are they entitled to that? Was Solyndra (sp) an entitlement? Do other companies think this way?
Sure we need to give to the needy who cannot help themselves but shouldn’t we look at ways to make that more efficient and raise the bar so those who are totally helpless are differentiated from those who are just lazy or made getting payments a lifestyle. Medicare. I only feel entitled to what I put in plus interest but I feel that my government should help in reducing the cost of healthcare overall. I feel that if somebody is going to collect more than they put in then they should be proactive about staying as healthy as possible ...this does not include those who have diseases that have nothing to do with maintaining a healthy lifestyle....like smoking. A person would have to be from Mars to not have read the warning label since the 70’s but the are using up what other do not use of Medicare to cover lung cancer and all of the related diseases to heavy smoking. Are they entitled to do that?
I am sure you all can think of 100’s of different government programs that have no meaning to society, are out of control, or are leftovers from the past.
Sometime this year, we taxpayers will again receive another 'Economic Stimulus' payment. This is indeed a very exciting program, and I'll explain it by using a Q & A format:
ReplyDeleteQ. What is an 'Economic Stimulus' payment ?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
Q.. Where will the government get this money ?
A. From taxpayers.
Q. So the government is giving me back my own money ?
A. Only a smidgen of it.
Q. What is the purpose of this payment ?
A. The plan is for you to use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.
Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.
Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the U.S. Economy by spending your stimulus check wisely:
* If you spend the stimulus money at Wal-Mart, the money will go to China or Sri Lanka .
* If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.
* If you purchase a computer, it will go to India , Taiwan or China .
* If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico , Honduras and Guatemala .
* If you buy an efficient car, it will go to Japan or Korea .
* If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan .
* If you pay your credit cards off, or buy stock, it will go to management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.
Instead, keep the money in America by:
1) Spending it at yard sales, or
2) Going to ball games, or
3) Spending it on prostitutes, or
4) Beer or
5) Tattoos.
(These are the only American businesses still operating in the U.S. )
Conclusion:
Go to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that you met at a yard sale and drink beer all day !
No need to thank me, I'm just glad I could be of help.
I will thank you anyway Fuzzy. Thanks!
DeleteJames, I have written a lot in his blog about the failures of the stimulus plan. Like many government programs, the liberal backers of these kinds of policies are relentless in their views that the programs worked. I read over and over that the US economy would have gone into a great depression without these programs. For sure, they maintained jobs of police fire, and teachers --- and some jobs in the auto industry. But from the publicity you would have thought they would have done a lot more than that. We have discussed over and over again that what we need is something more like restructuring if we are going to make the US competitive. But the convention shows what leading democrats thing about that -- trickle down, trojan horse etc.
ReplyDeleteTHIS COMMENT IS FROM CHARLES --
ReplyDeleteDear LSD. Geese, thanks for coming out of the closet and confirming your millionaire status plus accepting entitlements. That’s the good newz. The bad is that you are now admittedly in Obummer’s crosshairs—best to hire a very good (aka expensive) tax attorney.
I just concluded watching Clinton’s speech at the DNC. Such a persuasive guy; I want to shed my R tapestry, go on welfare, gladly accept putting my future sicknesses, infirmities, business failures (and forthcoming bailouts and socialization of losses), food stamps, and “happy” future in the welcoming and nurturing basket of four more Obummer years.
Having read this blog and comments and after watching both the RNC/DNC stuff I am more than ever convinced we are a nation too far divided—those that will produce and those that will suckle. Contemplating a politic that can come together, negotiate, compromise, and produce a win/win strikes me as light years past fantasy. (Only term limits can cure this malady, but the odds in favor of that are as slim as light surpassing its own speed.) Very little has been said at the DNC convention directed to budget, govomit/deficit/debt reduction other than Obummer’s last flaccid proposal to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the next 10 years, mostly by “revenue” enhancements. Rationale people should be asking, “Are you f_ _ king kidding me?”—but I firmly believe that liberals/progressives are not rationale. (Somewhat limp and flaccid apologies to your liberal/progressive readers.) The DNC’s message so far is that govomit is the answer. Listening to Slick Willy I almost drank the Kool-Aid.
As you have suggested/endeavored all along, the ideal is a compromising environment in Congress. As much as that sounds as appealing as Slick Willy’s siren call and appeal for 4 more years of Obummer, I must put wax in my ears, brace myself against the mast, and say no mas; no compromise, let the nation malaise; and drift until the WH, Senate, and Congress are firmly under R control. As you have said, that is no guarantee—but any compromise only kicks the can down the road. Better to have a better chance with a R trifecta than to have to reach a flaccid compromise that only delays a Greek-like tragedy with the U.S. crashing on the rocky west coast of Italy. Myth? As mythical as Obummer’s efficacy.
As one who usually votes R but who distrusts government power regardless of party, I have less optimism than you about all the benefits that would be brought should Romney have a strong win. As you know from my blog I don't kindly regard Obama's economic programs. But at least from what has been published so far, I don't see that much difference in debt progress under Romney. Since I agree with you that Obama would push too forcefully for more government I clearly do not like him. Romney hopefully would not move in that direction. So I favor him. But I still would rather see less energy spent onname calling and more directed toward solutions regardless who comes into office.
DeleteLarry, it may not seem so, but we all...Larry, James, Danny...are actually singing from the same song book. We would all like to see more than name-calling, but alas, the two parties are far too polarized to get past that. Personally, the D's have moved farther left than the R's have moved right, but while the D's have leapt the R's have slid subtly.
ReplyDeleteJames seems to equate liberals with progressives, and I assume by liberals he means Democrats; however, most of the "centrist" Republicans are progressive, too. Granted, it's a small number relative to the D's, but they're there. As the D's move farther away from the Constitution, as written, the divide with the strict constructionists grows wider and the bomb throwing will get worse. There was a time when the people saw the advantage to keeping a balance in government, but now we are too polarized ourselves. The left wants larger government and more "free stuff" while the rest of us want less government intrusion and less free stuff to the undeserving, i.e., those who do not qualify. There was a time when gridlock was good, but the freer use of executive orders and privileges has made it less effective except in budget matters. Can't get Congress to loosen up on welfare? Just issue an order to HHS to wear a blindfold when doling out the freebies. Don't like the way schools mete out punishment for misbehavior? Here's an order for Arne to arbitrarily devise a "punishment schedule" to ensure murder in a school gets the same treatment as theft. While the left applauds these actions, the right gets more disgruntled, and the rift gets wider.
I would say when government gets back to a point of not trying to be all things and give all things to all people, things will improve, but I would be totally naive because government was too far gone in that direction with FDR. Human nature is human nature. A large faction of the population has been trained that government is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Great Pumpkin all rolled into one while there's still a segment, although shrinking, which believes in self-dependence, personal responsibility, and the 10th Amendment. Of course, there's a segment somewhere in the middle which doesn't have a clue. Oddly enough, the people in the seats power share one of those points of view and use it to maintain the power they have acquired. They do little to bring the two extremes closer, and, in fact, we seem to elect them to do what they're doing...stand at the extremes with us. So, we get name calling, and that's exactly what we want them to do because that's what we do when it gets right down to the nut crunching. And don't expect it to change in our lifetimes. Any solutions which get offered will result in more name-calling. Ryan's solution for Medicare and Social Security may not be perfect, but they seem to be the only solutions offered by either side. Look at the angst it generated....none of based in logic....just that the "other side" came up with it so we're have to yell. Nope, wish for more civility all you want to, but realistically, things won't change in this life.
Nice summary Fuzzy. It is hard to argue with your main points but I think it is true that sometimes things change a lot just when you think they won't. What I keep coming back to is that the sides have very different assumptions about human behavior. This has always been true. But as you say the more experience we have with the bigger government state, the more each side becomes entrenched in their policy views. So it is very hard to see a way out. My guess is that things have to get worse before they can get better. But things getting worse does not promise a particular solution -- it only means that a new course of action might be taken once we more clearly see past failures.
ReplyDeleteI suppose I tend to see the glass half empty. "Atlas Shrugged" struck a chord with me. Things will only get worse because too many people see themselves as "deserving" just because they're here. What really bums me out is that there is no secluded valley in the Rockies where the producers can go live in peace. In short, to truly open the eyes of the population, the walls will have to come tumbling down.
ReplyDelete