Reform Entitlements For Those 'Moochers,' The Rich

With the nation undergoing seemingly endless battles over the budget, some Republicans have targeted programs they like to call "entitlements;" that is, programs, they say, people feel entitled to receive, with the further connotation that these programs and their recipients are bleeding the country of its wealth and financial stability. Also there seems to be this belief by some that this supposed dependence on government is just somehow awful, but that being at the mercy of greedy businesspeople is just so much better. The 2012 election showed us just what the use of the term "entitlements" meant for Republicans, as their presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, clearly spelled it all out in what became perhaps THE defining moment of the campaign, as he spoke to wealthy campaign donors who paid $50,000 a plate for dinner one day at a mansion in Florida.* In his remarks, Romney said that 47% of Americans would automatically vote for President Obama, because they were dependent upon government through various "entitlements." ** Reaction was swift and generally negative, even from many Republicans, who distanced themselves from the remarks, but right wing supporters tended to rally to Romney's defense, with the term "moochers" working its way into the discussion as a term for recipients.

We often now hear Social Security and Medicare mentioned in the context of "entitlements," which is incorrect. Americans pay into both.*** Now you can argue we don't pay enough, or we haven't paid enough, into the programs, or that some Americans receive too much or too little, but these are totally different arguments. The idea with Social Security when it was established, was that if everyone paid in, there would be broad-based support for it, rather than having some sort of "means testing," which would make it more of an entitlement, as everyone would pay, but not everyone would receive benefits. So, very wealthy people, age 65 and up, receive a Social Security check each month, regardless of the fact that they don't need it. By law, they cannot give it back, or cancel it. So has the premise about broad-based support held up? Yes, in the sense that polls show a large majority of Americans support Social Security, but since wealthy people don't need Social Security, even to supplement their incomes, the idea that they will necessarily view Social Security in the same light as the rest of us is mistaken, although there are many wealthy folks, I'm sure, who recognize the need for the program. There are also those who are pretty much opposed to Social Security, and over time, there has been a concerted effort to discredit the program and have people invest money for their own retirement. That assumes people would do so on their own, or that everyone could be an investment genius (if there is such a thing). This takes us back to more survival of the fittest (actually of the luckiest), with some of the true beneficiaries being the big banks and Wall Street investment firms, in general.**** So what happens to people who make bad investments? When they get older, what, do we throw them out on the street or just what should happen to them? With falling or essentially stagnant wages for many Americans over the last few decades, what about people who can't invest much? Let's face it, left on our own, if an emergency pops up, real or perceived, many folks will choose NOT to invest if they feel they need the money at the moment to deal with whatever it is, including necessities like buying the latest IPhone, HDTV or some other gadget. Social Security has been a bugaboo for many Republicans dating back to the mid 1930s when it was voted into existence (many Republicans voted FOR Social Security back then, but there were opponents, including some Democrats, but the two political parties were not as ideologically divided back then). Further, Social Security does NOT contribute to the budget deficit; in fact, if anything, it has helped to mask deficits, as it has run a surplus for a number of years, and Social Security does not get money directly from Uncle Sam's general revenues anyway.***** I point this out only because some Republicans have muddied the deficit waters by saying Social Security has to be dealt with now, perhaps bringing some Americans to the misinformed conclusion that Social Security is part of the current problem, which is totally untrue, something the opponents of Social Security seem loathe to make clear. There will be issues about Social Security in the future, if current projections hold up, and people on both sides of the aisle agree on that. The sooner the potential problems are dealt with is undoubtedly better, but Americans should not be stampeded into changes that are NOT in their, and thus the nation's, overall interest, but are very favorable for wealthy business interests.  

As often happens with me, I intended this to be just one article, but it will take at least another installment. Hey, I'm verbose. That's okay, because these are very important issues, and I seriously doubt many Americans really even understand the basics about the debate, let alone the finer points. So I'll continue in "Part Two." 

* Candidates from both major political parties take money from wealthy donors.

** Mr. Romney said more, but that was the key line, although his further remarks elaborated about people who believe themselves to be victims, who feel it is the responsibility of government to care for them with food, housing, medical care, and "you name it."

*** I believe it is more appropriate to say "Americans contribute to both programs," rather than to say "Americans are taxed" for these programs. Opponents of both programs like to use the word "tax," because of its negative connotation, but we are paying into these programs for our own potential benefit, as well as sharing a common responsibility as a nation. If you have health insurance, I'll bet you don't go around saying, "I paid my tax to the insurance company." Or if you have some type of retirement policy or investment plan, you don't say, "I paid my tax for my 401 K." Also, contributions to Social Security are paid on up to just south of $114,000 in income and not above. All adjusted income is subject to the 1.45% rate for Medicare. Employers contribute an equal share on both rates, but their contributions to employees is a business expense, and the self employed pay the full rate on themselves, but they get to use the "employer amount" as an expense.  

**** I've told this many times before, but it's certainly relevant again here. My father was a staunch Republican, who, like many Republicans back then, criticized Social Security. Then he retired and started receiving his Social Security. A while later the Republicans took over Congress in the mid 1990s and the talk of privatizing part or all of Social Security became part of the national debate. Then my father saw it all VERY differently, even bluntly criticizing Republicans, saying big business people just wanted to get their greedy hands on the Social Security money. My father and I often had ... ah ... disagreements on politics, but in this case, he hit the nail on the head.  

***** Social Security gets money from Uncle Sam, but only because the program holds U.S. Treasury securities, just as anyone holding government bonds does. This means Social Security buys U.S. government debt in the form of these special securities. Interest is paid on the securities. Bonds, whether issued by some government entity or by private companies, are a form of debt for the issuer.

WORD HISTORY:
Dull-This word goes back to Indo European "dhwul/dhwel," which had the notion "to obscure, to dim," and seems to have also been applied to things that caused something to be obscured or dimmed, such as "swirling smoke or dust." This gave its Old Germanic offspring "dulaz," which used the "obscured, dimmed" notion in another manner; that being, "foolish;" that is, "unclear, dimmed thoughts." This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "dol," which meant "stupid, foolish, silly." This then became "dul(l)," before finally settling on "dull." The meaning of "dim of mind" took on the figurative meaning "blunt" for knives and other implements, and the primary "stupid" meaning began to recede, although we still use "dull witted." A verb form developed form the adjective, meaning "to lose sharpness or sheen;" thus still today we talk about "colors dulled" by the sun, weather, or washing, usually in the case of clothing. Forms in the other Germanic languages have generally maintained the connection with "unclear in thought" or "in some manner obscured," and as their English cousin, they all once pretty much meant "dimwitted" in some sense:: German has "toll," which usually means "crazy, wild," but has the every day language meaning "great, super, fantastic" (from the idea that when you like something, you go crazy, wild); Low German Saxon has "dull" (angry, fantastic); some Low German dialect has "doll" (mad); Dutch has "dol" (mad, wild), West Frisian has "dwylsinnich" (crazy, wild); Icelandic has "dulur" (secretive; that is, obscuring something). I could not find modern versions of the word in Danish, Norwegian, or Swedish.