Are Entitlement Programs Creating a Culture of Dependency?

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.