It had been a long time since I had read our Constitution, so decided it was time for a refresher. Illuminating. Nowhere in either the Constitution or any of the amendments could I find either the verb “entitle” or the noun “entitlements.” But these words seem to be in constant current use.
Probably the closest inference to such might be in the preamble to (not the body of) the Constitution, which suggests a responsibility to “promote the general welfare” of the country. Synonyms of “promote” are “abet, assist, encourage.” These have a more passive sound to them than words like “provide, enact, underwrite, fund, etc.” as is currently being done. This does raise the question of the appropriate balance between individual responsibilities versus the responsibility of the monolithic federal government. It also doesn’t take into account the 10th Amendment, which says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or the people.”
Nowhere does it suggest the need for a Department of Energy, Department of Labor, Department of Health and Education, or a bankrupt Social Security system. Not too surprisingly, it does indicate a federal responsibility for defense, roads and a post office which obviously span the whole country. So why, for example, has the government decided that they need to take away our personal responsibility for our health, our education, or our retirement?
If medical insurance premiums were tax deductible for individuals as they are for corporations, the individual would regain the incentive and the ability to obtain better personal coverage. Education would be enhanced immeasurably with the introduction of school choice as has been shown wherever tried. Returns on retirement funds could only be better if privatized instead of being spent for other things by the feds. In other words, all three major needs could be more productively provided with the introduction of personal decision making.
You’ve probably guessed where this is heading. Yes, we now have politicians making all these decisions for us at great expense and with minimum acceptable results. They learned a few decades ago that the more pots they could stick their grubby fingers into, the more they could claim that we need them to take care of us and our personal decisions. Isn’t it truly amazing that our forefathers ever survived and prospered so well without big government there to interfere?
“Entitlements” are a figment of a socialist politician’s imagination which provides the excuse to interfere with personal responsibility. Even more to the point, they represent the politician’s desire to redistribute resources from those taking care of their own responsibilities to those who don’t. The beauty of it for the pols is that the opportunity for such is endless, thereby creating the lifelong employment of politicians in their interference with our personal responsibilities. Instead of Big Brother, we have to be more concerned with Big Nanny.
There is an old cliché that all decisions should be made at the lowest possible level in any hierarchy, even including all the way down to the single individual. In our country’s great race to mediocrity, all our politicians seem focused on the reverse approach to our great detriment. As we suffer the interminable debates of the egomaniacs running for president, wouldn’t it be wonderful if one or more was humble enough to suggest that we the people should have more say, not less, in our daily lives.
Santa Fean Gregg Bemis is an industrialist/adventurer and concerned senior citizen.
