Ending Entitlements (Hal Cohen)

  I want to retire the term “entitlements.”  It sends the wrong message.

  Jan. 18, 2009 (World News Trust) -- Update on a theme:

        When they came for the homeless, I said nothing-

        For I was not homeless

        When they came for the poor, I said nothing-

        For I was not poor

        When they came for the unemployed, I said nothing-

        For I was not unemployed

        When the came for the part-time worker, I said nothing-

        For I did not work part time

        When they came for me, no one said a thing,

        For the rich don’t give a shit.

  Like so many others, I am excited about the incoming Obama Administration and a new direction for our country.  In the interests of disclosure, yes, I pulled a lever for Senator Obama.  That being said, I wish to offer my advice to our President-elect.  Over the last several weeks, indeed the issue that led to your breakaway has been the economy.  There can also be no doubt that a majority of Americans want out of Iraq.  But as these issues have dominated news coverage, entitlements have been a silent drag on our social progress and they need to end.

  As the “Most liberal senator,”  a title rooted more in rhetoric than reality, many people would think me insane to suggest that Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid could possibly end in an Obama Administration.  They would be correct.  Despite my many claims to the contrary, I am not insane.  So how do I reconcile the seeming contradiction I have just presented?

  The truth is that I do not wish to end the programs.  I want to retire the term “entitlements.”  It sends the wrong message.  The implicit message in entitlements is that people are receiving something that they did not earn but to which they have the right.  Just this past week a Republican official actually said, and I’m paraphrasing, that at least slaves had to work to earn their food and shelter -- as opposed to those freeloaders on welfare.

  Republican leaders never want to extend unemployment benefits because they claim that people will sit on their butts until the benefits run out.  I’m not saying that there are no people who may do just that.  A recent co-worker wanted to be fired so he could collect unemployment as opposed to quitting.  I posit that he is the minority.  My position is that most people don’t want to collect unemployment, they want to collect a paycheck -- the same with welfare.

  There is a great scene in the movie “Cinderella Man” where James Braddock walks into the Relief agency and pays back all the money he had received from the U.S. government.  Nobody had sent him a bill.  He returned it for the simple reason that he was in a position to do so.  Remember, this is a true story.  What could be more American than that idea -- my country helped me out when the economy was so bad that I couldn’t provide for my family, and now that I am self-reliant again, I’m giving back.

  This brings me to my point about retiring the word entitlement.  I don’t believe for a second that the “underprivileged” in our society are “entitled” to the benefits that they receive.  I am sure that most would prefer not to have to receive them.  There are times when external forces are so great that people need assistance, and we all benefit when they receive it.  As long as a program is called an entitlement, the argument can be made that bureaucrats don’t think people can make it without help.  I believe the opposite.  I believe that all things being equal everyone could make it on their own.  All things just aren’t equal.

  As “entitlements,”  the Republican publicity machinery has successfully portrayed recipients as undeserving.  Why should someone collect money (welfare) for doing nothing when I have to work?  Why do lazy people get health care for free when I can’t afford insurance?  These types of questions have also been used to stoke anti-immigrant fervor, (I.e, these illegals come here to collect welfare and get free medicare).

  The financial sector bail-out provides a perfect example of entitlement hypocrisy.  Republicans blame the crisis on Democratic politicians forcing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to offer loans to people who were not credit-worthy.  Why should we help these people who bought houses they couldn’t afford, they ask.  They don’t ask why should we help the rich people who invested in the mortgage backed securities knowing that they could lose their investments.

  The irony is that rich people ARE entitled.  It is as if they have been ordained by G-d to receive money.  The rich get what they don’t earn because as rich people they can have it.  However, when someone in a situation much like the average American gets help, other average Americans get mad.  Instead of asking why should some lazy oaf get health care for free when I have to pay for it, middle class America should be asking why don’t I get government-funded health care?

  Private insurance would still be available, but the costs would decrease dramatically.  Conservative rhetoric would have you believe that most people benefiting from entitlements are gaming the system, committing some kind of fraud.  The Cadillac-driving welfare mom is the stereotype they promote.  I say that view is one counter to the Greatness of America.  My default position is that most Americans aspire to the highest ideals to which we all hold dear.

  This is not a naïve, Pollyanna position.  There are obviously people who game the system.  As someone who would strive to reach the greatness that is the promise of America, however, I believe that those who game the system are the minority.  The frauds, the cheats are the exceptions to the rule.  In right wing circles, why is fraud limited to the poor?  Why aren’t corporations, which are run by people capable of human frailty?

  It is mentioned often that we are a nation of laws, not of men.  Supreme among those laws is the Constitution.  That law imposes upon us the duty to promote the general welfare.  If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, our welfare is only as good as our poorest citizen.

  Hal Cohen is editor and publisher of Mollynyc.com