Posted by
Patrick Henry on Saturday, August 27, 2011 9:34:26 PM
"Entitlement" is a word we hear a lot in the media and in congress
these days. But what does it mean, and where did it come from? The
debate about entitlement began during the framing of the Declaration
of Independence. Some wanted to say that all men had the inalienable
right to life, liberty and happiness. But the wording that won out said
that people should have the right to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of
happiness, seeing that no one can guarantee another's happiness.
Then the Constitution was written, and the same battle, though
differently framed, was rejoined. Both the preamble, which does not
carry the authority of law, and Article I, Section 8, which does, refer
to congress providing for the "common welfare." Scholars such as
the legendary James Madison argued that the phrase should be
construed in a general sense, rather than an individual one. This
suggested that the welfare of the union, rather than that of
individual citizens was all that was implied. But the equally famous
Alexander Hamilton arged the opposite, suggesting that the welfare
of the union could not be preserved unless that of its citizenry was
also guaranteed.
Fast forward to 1932, and the election of Franklin Delano
Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Thirteen million were
without employment, poverty was rife and there was no hope in
sight. Roosevelt began slowly funneling government funding into
social and economic rehabilitation, a trend accelerated by World
War I that provided jobs and effectively re-started America's
damaged economic engine.
In 1935, Roosevelt and the congress passed the Social Security
Act, swiftly followed by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act,
a payroll tax intended to fund it. The notion was that the FICA of
those currently paying in could be used to guarantee a basic income
for those retired, and that such income would be governed by the
amount paid in and the time period over which it was paid. In time,
a separate social security trust fund was set aside to guarantee the
program's solvency.
Over time, the act was greatly enlarged by the OASDI (old age,
survivors and disability insurance) program that also guaranteed
generous payments to surviving widows and children of those
vested in the system, and those forced to retire early due to
physical disablity. Since these benefits were guaranteed by law,
they werepayments to which beneficiaries were "entitled." Thus, the
consitutional interpretation of Hamilton ultimately won out over that
of Madison, and the entitlements were born.This opened an
entitlement floodgate to programs like the federally funded senior
healthcare program known as Medicare, and a similar program for
the indigent, known as Medicaid.
Social Security was a linchpin of FDR's so called New Deal, and
was subjected to lengthy litigation resulting in the U. S. Supreme
Court throwing out large chunks of New Deal government
legislation as not constitutionally justified. But Social Security survived
and became, as it were, the "camel's nose under the tent flap" for more
such entitlements to come.
By 1964, it became obvious that America was rapidly dividing into
a nation of "haves" and "have nots." Freeing the slaves without a
plan for their empowerment, assimilation and equal ooprtunity was a
mid-19th century blunder that was coming home to roost, symbolized
by large and growing urban enclaves of black poverty where disease,
hunger and violence were the order of most days. Johnson laid a grand
plan for what he called "The Great Society," and one of the central
features of it was the Food Stamp Act, wherein those living below a
certain income level received government vouchers that could be
used at food stores in lieu of cash. Following later was the Department
of Housing and Urban Development, a congressionally authorized
vehicle to provide rent-free or low cost housing to the poor. Many
such developments became known as "the projects," where those still
dirt poor but now having the essentials for survival could live together.
Thus, a whole new class of entitlements was born. More that were
smaller and less well-known were to follow.
Finally, in December of 2009, a heavily partisan Democratic congress
under President Barack Obama passed The Patient Protection Affordable
Care Act, providing access to health insurance for all. This bitterly
divisive bill was passed on a strict party line vote in the dead of night
and ran heavily against the will of the electorate. Today it is bogged
down in litigation because 26 states sued the administration claiming that
the bill is unconstitutional due to its "individual mandate" requiring that
every American purchase health insurance. The appellate courts have
split in their opinions, and the matter will most assuredly be decided at
the level of the Supreme Court. Since the individual mandate is the
principal funding mechanism for the legislation, it is widely believed
that if it is found unconstitutional, most of the legislation will be
rendered moot.
So much for the short history of entitlements. So what's the problem?
The problems exist on three levels. First, ideology. Conservatives
believe that taking money from those who have earned and giving it to
those who have not (redistributionism) is immoral. With 47% of
Americans currently paying zero income tax and unprecedented numbers
living on food stamps, it seems to many that fully half the population
is living off the other half. Liberals argue, on the other hand, that leaving
the hungry, the homeless, the aged and children destitute is even more
immoral, and that such neglect will rot the nation's soul from within,
leading ultimately to class-based revolution. Both sides use their
position as a lever with voters, with conservatives promising the electorate
that they will reign in entitlements, and liberals seeking to enlist more
entitlement recipients in order to ingratiate themselves and enlarge their
voter base. The result is a congress that has become bitterly and
irresponsibly partisan and tacks the country first this way, then that like
a rudderless ship in the wind.
The second problem is financial. The nation is nearly fifteen-trillion
dollars in debt, running trillion dollar deficits annually and the biggest
drivers of that debt are the entitlements. OASDI will become insolvent
in 2017, with both Medicare and Social Security following suit in the
decade to follow. As numerous voices on both sides of the aisle in
congress have pointed out, we are on a clearly unsustainable fiscal
trajectory and that trajectory cannot be meaningfully altered with some
change in the entitlements.
The third level is practical. So if we dispense with or drastcally
reduce entitlements, then what. What happens to those who have
for whatever reason become utterly dependent on them? And what are
the alternatives?
It is precisely those questions that the next post on this blog will
address.