THE "E" WORD
Back in the old days, it was said that no politician could touch the "third rail" of politics - social security - and survive. Today, that has been expanded to the entire "E" word: ENTITLEMENTS. In the view of those in Washington to whom nothing is dearer than getting reelected, the entire range of entitlements are off limits, verboten, taboo. The rub is, entitlements are bankrupting us. I don't have to worry about getting reelected, so let's take a look at this mess.
First, every major religion, and all but the most pathological secularists, recognizes a moral duty to take care of the needy. Every society in recorded history has recognized this duty. We as Americans recognize this duty, not only to other Americans, but to the world. As Japan reels in the shock of the earth quake and tsunami, we have sent help. We will send more just as we did in Haiti and Indonesia. Our military was among the first on scene. But the huge share of relief will come directly from American citizens. We will volunteer and we will give. This is our nature. This is called charity and it is freely given to those in need. Unlike charity, entitlements are coercive in nature. Government takes from one group and gives to another. The first group has no choice. The recipients have, or perceive they have a right to receive the entitlement.
The question before us in 2011 is, how long will we be able to fulfill our moral duty of charity to each other and the world before our economy collapses under the weight of entitlement programs? Perhaps just important is the question of whether the existing mish-mash of federal entitlement programs meets our moral duty to the needy. The answer to the first question, how long until we collapse, is, "not long." Even the four horsemen of our financial apocalypse, Pelosi, Reed, McConnell (no relation) and Boehner, are getting glimmers of what has people so upset. Their lights are not on yet, but they are flickering.
If they would spend three to four hours reading, just for example, NATIONAL SUICIDE, by Martin Gross, the lights would come on. He documents that the cost of welfare exceeds spending for either Social Security, Medicare, or the Department of Defense every year. One-third of what the federal government spends is borrowed, and the interest on that debt will soon reach 100% of GDP. So, what good are we to each other, much less the rest of the world, if America suffers financial collapse? Not much.
The second question is trickier to answer because it has been filled with overtones, both racial and judgmental. It doesn't need to be, but has been. Certainly, not everyone who receives a federal entitlement is a minority, or poor, or a bad person. I draw social security and a military pension - both are federal entitlements. Instead of getting wrapped up in discussions about race and judgment that in this context are a dead end, we need to look at outcomes.
Military pensions have been used as an incentive to serve since the Revolution. Soldiers, sailors and airmen sign a deal, payable in blood. I will give my life if necessary to protect you. If I keep my end of the deal for twenty years or more, you pay for my retirement. Most agree this has worked. Social Security, originally pitched as insurance which would pay for itself, has been a Ponzi scheme from the outset. The first recipients didn't pay anything into the system. It worked for awhile when we were a manufacturing economy, ordinary people had good-paying jobs, and we hadn't gotten bitten by "have it all now" credit card marketing. Politicians played hide the ball for years as the number of recipients increased and the number of payers decreased. But now social security is upside down. Worse yet, the "lock-box" is a pile of IOU's. Everybody with a lick of sense knows it. Most agree that the age of denial is over and we need other retirement options. Those who were forced to pay into the system all their lives rightly expect a return on their involuntary investment. A conundrum indeed.
This leaves us with what Paul Harvey called "the rest of the story". While we continue to be the most generous people on earth in our charitable acts and giving, Americans have turned most of their personal moral obligation to help the needy over to the government. We transfer at least $700 billion a year from taxpayers to those who for one reason or another are viewed by particular congressman or senators as "needing help". The help comes through eight-five different programs, administered by at least six different agencies. Yet despite this largess, the number of those "needing help" continues to rise rather than drop.
Not only do their numbers increase, Bill Cosby has documented the disastrous impact federal programs have had on blacks in his book, COME ON PEOPLE. Specifically he tracks how divorce, un-wed mothers, school dropout, unemployment, depression, suicide, drug-use, crime, and incarceration have all increased since the Great Society programs were instituted in the '60s. I suspect his findings among the black community are consistent with results across the board. What is this outcome other than an immoral failure to meet the moral obligation we punted to the federal government?
We teeter on the edge of bankruptcy and the outcomes are disastrous. Yet this mish-mash has enabled lots of mediocre people using the crutch of political careers to get life-time employment/retirement/healthcare, you name it. Meanwhile congress argues about whether one, sixty, or a hundred billion in cuts is enough when we have a one thousand five hundred billion dollar deficit projected for this year. Hopefully the lights will come on before it is too late, but I have my doubts. So what is the answer?
I suggest we phase out the entire federal entitlement mish-mash over the next two years. Let's put welfare back where it belongs with individual citizens who join with others and take care of those in their families and communities who are in need.
