Archive for May, 2011
Entitlements or welfare?
We continue to hear Washington talk about entitlements. Sorry folks, entitlements were stolen from us long ago, when Congress decided to loot the Social Security (SS) program and put those dollars you and I invested for so many years to their own pet projects.
Entitlements come because you are entitled to receive them, i.e. you’ve invested and deserve a return on your money. However, in order to buy those precious votes, Congress decided that SS should also pay for, as a for instance, widows and children of those who invested in the program (and probably for some who didn’t), regardless of how much and how long they invested. If a young man died at 25, his widow and children would begin receiving benefits. He may have only paid into the program for three years, subsequent to his going to college, and may have sired two children. Until those children reach their majority, they would receive benefits.
Sorry, Charlie, that’s welfare, not entitlement.
My current dictionary on my iPad from Dictionary.Com, however, now defines “entitlement” as 1) the act of entitling 2) the state of being entitled 3) the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, such as Social Security or Unemployment Compensation.
However, my 1960 Webster’s Dictionary defines entitle (none for entitlement), as it’s 3rd definition after those relating to titles in the English Ton system, as 3) to qualify (a person) to do something; to give a claim to; to give a right to demand or receive; as his labor entitles him to his wages.
The first (current) definition infers that one is entitled because he lives under a “government” and the second (1960) infers that you’re entitled because you’ve invested something, such as your labor. A return on investment is not welfare.
How times change.
Now, I’m certainly not suggesting that we shouldn’t take care of orphaned children, or even children of a household which has lost it’s primary provider…however my mother raised my brother and I by herself, with hard work and self-reliance, and without one dime of government aid other than our living in County low rent housing. However, those orphaned or in need children are not entitled as they did not invest in the system. It’s welfare, and should be called welfare.
We should be entitled to health care if we’ve invested in health care, if we receive a return on that investment over and above the return on the money we’ve invested, then it’s welfare. You can call a pig a peacock, but he’s still a pig. You can call SS payments entitlements, so long as they reflect a return on what’s paid in, anything over and above that is welfare.
Last year 800 billion was paid into SS and it paid out 700 billion. And a good portion of that was paid to those who didn’t pay into the system, take the illegal alien for instance who never paid a dime into the system, but if he’s a resident of the U.S. and of age, he qualifies for SS payments…but it’s welfare, not SS, and certainly not “entitlement.” At least not when the system of entitlements was working, in 1960.
Like most creeping socialistic cancers, welfare has come to be known as “entitlement.” Maybe it makes those who receive it feel better, but it’s still welfare, and should be labeled as such, and maybe many of them who receive government aid of so many varied kinds: food stamps, welfare, college loans that no longer have to be repaid, and, yes, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid, would move faster to become self-reliant. Call a pig a pig, and it might make a difference, if there’s any personal pride left in Americans.
Hard work makes a man; hand out, palm up forsakes a man. And hand out, palm up, is welfare.
Found in a supermarket parking lot….
Probably celebrating their 10th anniversary…on food stamps.
“The history of the welfare state is the history of public enterprise pushing out private organization. The impact was largely unintentional, but natural and inevitable. Higher taxes left individuals with less money to give; government’s assumption of responsibility for providing welfare shriveled the perceived duty of individuals to respond to their neighbors’ needs; and the availability of public programs gave recipients an alternative to private assistance, one which did not challenge recipients to reform their destructive behavior.”
– Doug Bandow
(1954- ) columnist, author, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute
Source: National Service — or Government Service?, Policy Review, P. 34, September-October, 1996
From Americans for Legal Immigration:
In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the Legal Arizona Worker’s Act, passed in 2007, that allows the state of Arizona to punish employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. The “controversial” law was opposed by the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona’s law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.
May 26, 2011
By a 5-3 vote, the court said Wednesday that federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.
This ruling sets positive precedent for SB 1070 as the Supreme Court rejected arguments in the ruling that states have no role in immigration policy. A win for Arizona and numerous other states like Georgia, Utah, North Carolina, South Carolina, Nebraska and more who have taken the illegal immigration issue into their own hands due to the failure of the federal government to enforce immigration laws.
Billionaire businessman Donald Trump, who staged a weeks-long public campaign questioning Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president during March and April – and rose to the top of the pool of potential candidates for the 2012 GOP nominationthen as a result – says he believes the “birth certificate” released by the White House is forged.
His comments came yesterday in a telephone call to WND senior reporter Jerome Corsi, Ph.D., who is appearing on wall-to-wall radio programs – between 10 and 20 per day – to respond to questions about his latest best-seller, ”Where’s the Birth Certificate? The Case That Barack Obama is Not Eligible to be President.”
Trump asked Corsi about the book, its evidence and what is happening next in the effort to document whether Obama is, in fact, constitutionally qualified for the presidency under Article 2, Section 1′s “natural born citizen” requirement.
Trump said his period of almost-complete silence on the issue following the release by the White House on April 27 of the image of a “Certificate of Live Birth” from the state of Hawaii was not because he was satisfied with the document.
“I always said I wanted to know if it was real,” Trump told Corsi.