The ISSUE
The
term
entitlement, which is a
euphemism for
welfare, describes
“benefits provided by government to which recipients have a legally enforceable
right”
(The American Political Dictionary, 2001). Entitlement programs exist
throughout all socioeconomic demographics, yet the most well known examples concern
lower income recipients, such as Social Security, TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy
Families), SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), and the Affordable
Care Act (also known as Obamacare).
Whether the title given to the
concept of government aid be welfare,
entitlements, or government resource
transfers, the idea of the government providing assistances to some over others ignites polarizing, emotional opinion within the United
States.
The debate surrounding whether or not entitlements help or hurt
the individuals and collective society they serve is not only based on economic
concerns, but moral ones. The morality attached to entitlement spending is
entwined with deeply rooted American values touting the importance of
individualism
and personal responsibility, all of which raise the question, “Do entitlement
programs create a culture of dependency”?
YES
 |
| Nicholas Eberstadt, author of A Nation of Takers and douche |
According
to Nicholas Eberstadt, author of A Nation
of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic, entitlement spending in the
United States has transformed the country into an “entitlement machine”, and is creating a culture of dependency, and one
that has lost the determination to work. Reflecting on the past when “paupers”
- those who accepted private charity and lived off public resources - faced
social stigma, Eberstadt claims that today, more than half of all American households’
embrace receiving some form of government entitlements without shame
(Eberstadt, 2012).
 |
| My personal reaction to Eberstadt |
Eberstadt further claims the normalization of
entitlements has caused an explosion of disability claims and awards under the
disability insurance provisions of the U.S. Social Security program, contributing
to the transfer of “over $2.2 trillion in money, goods, and services to
recipient men, women, and children in the United States”. Eberstadt asserts that as a result of easy accessibility to government
entitlement programs and the lack of social stigma attached to receiving them, “many millions of Americans are making a living by
putting their hands into the pockets” of their fellow taxpayer citizens
(Eberstadt, 2012).
NO
 |
| William Galston, not an asshole |
William Galston, a former policy
advisor to President Clinton, argues against Eberstadt and his claim that the
growth of entitlement programs, since 1960, has destabilized American
self-reliance, and created a culture of dependency. Galston emphasizes
that Eberstadt’s research fails to present any direct evidence that the growth
of government entitlements has weakened America’s moral character. He further
asserts that Eberstadt’s research fails to tell the whole truth by ignoring entitlements such as tax expenditures,
which disproportionately benefit upper-income families and now constitute more
than $1.1 trillion annually. Galston argues that
contrary to dependence, entitlement
programs create interdependence,
which is the extension of reciprocity found in well-functioning societies
(Galston, 2012).
 |
| Interdependence, did you say? |
Examining America’s need for entitlement programs is
different than examining America’s dependency
on entitlement programs. In terms of need,
Galston cites three long-cycle trends that concern the distribution of
entitlements: America’s aging society, the near-disappearance of pensions and
health insurance for retirees, and the macroeconomic trend reflecting higher costs accompanying lower or stalled incomes. Galston undermines
Eberstadt’s dependency claim by citing
the 2009 PEW Social Mobility Project, which reveals most Americans as
continuing to believe that government entitlement programs are not a substitute
for hard work, ambition, and education (Galston, 2012).
 |
| Add caption |
CONCLUSION
To
be entitled to something is not the
same as being dependent on it. The real
moral problem surrounding the increased need for entitlement programs does not
come from low socioeconomic people having dependence, but from the underlying causes that create need
for entitlement programs, such as multisystemic oppression of marginalized
groups, self-interest and greed from big business, loss of benefits,
lower-wages, and increased cost of living. Those who share the perception that
the majority of entitlement programs are distributed to the bottom of the
socioeconomic latter, while single-handedly draining the economy, and creating dependency,
laziness, and a desire for “free stuff” are in blind
denial.
 |
| That's right, blind denial, folks. |
Deliberate unemployment is a myth.
For example,
according
to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, nearly 60 percent of all
able-bodied SNAP participants work while receiving benefits, and more than 80
percent work in the year before or after receiving SNAP. Furthermore, many
entitlement programs stimulate healthier and more productive members of society
by providing vital stepping stones, such as education support tax credits that
promote long-term opportunity, the Affordable Care Act, Medicare and Medicaid that
improve quality of life (particularly for children and elders), and housing
subsidies that provide safety and dignity for less advantaged people. Despite
the misconceptions, which are largely promoted by elitist conservatives, able-bodied people remain the
demographic group most under-served by the entitlement system (Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, 2012). Eberstadt’s relating the rise of
entitlements to dependency is an example of pervasive misrepresentation of the
poor through mobilization of bias and misuse of statistics.
