The Entitlement Society

by Jackson Dave

Many would say that our sense of “entitlement” began with the social programs of The New Deal in the 30’s. But Social Security is the only “alphabet” program that survived the war. Most were not necessary, or couldn't be sustained during the war. Roosevelt did what appeared to be necessary to move the nation forward after three years of floundering under Hoover.

Propelled by robust industry and the Marshall Plan, America became an industrial and financial giant after the war. America “worked” and prospered during the fifties and even the sixties. In the seventies, cracks appeared in our superstructure with the energy crisis, and were highlighted by President Carter in his call to the nation to move in a new direction.

As for the budget, President Eisenhower was a relatively conscientious steward, and even Richard Nixon produced one balanced budget. The weight of our unfunded war in Vietnam, along with the social programs of the 60’s fell upon President Carter, who faced so-called “stagflation”, a term coined to describe high inflation coupled with increasing unemployment.

The clarion call of "modern" America was sounded in 1981 by Ronald Reagan, with “Morning in America”. Under his vision, prosperity would just happen! We didn’t have to pay for it; in fact, the lower he could drive taxes, the greater would be our prosperity! Reagan ushered in a dramatic increase in government programs and spending, doubling the “defense” budget and cutting back on nothing.

Through our history, multiple world wars, social problems and all, we arrived at the dawn of Reagan with public debt under a trillion dollars (it is now over $12 Trillion!) So who let the cat out of the bag? Common (Republican) wisdom tells us that it’s “tax and spend” Democrats who bust the budget. That makes no more sense than the multitude of other Republican canards, since “tax and spend” would tend to keep the books straight.

Reagan campaigned on fiscal prudence (don’t they all), and backed it up with his record as California Governor, where he raised taxes and balanced the budget. But this was the new Gipper! Now his policy was “borrow and spend”. Even though he raised taxes in his second term to slow the ballooning debt, by then he was the “Teflon president”, and his minions ignored it. Reagan increased government debt by three and a half times to $3.1 Trillion; the residual of his policy added two additional trillion in the four years of George H. W. Bush. Bush raised taxes in mid-term, was called to task for what was ignored from Reagan, and thus lost his bid for re-election.

Meanwhile in the 1984 presidential campaign, Walter Mondale, without “getting it”, spoke fiscal truth. "After four years of Reagan profligacy, the budget required a tax raise!" Mondale told us straight out that he would be a prudent steward of our legacy. He lost 49 states. After that, we all got it!

What had happened between even the 70’s and 1984? Ronald Reagan showed us the path to power. He told us we could have it all: limitless oil, lower taxes, all the government services we wanted. This was not a plan for good government; this was a ruse for getting elected. This is what Republicans venerate him for, and it has worked! Prior to Reagan, presidents (and aspirants) made the assumption that the American public wouldn't tolerate irresponsible government.

Reagan gave us the sense of entitlement. Who cares about the budget? We glorify consumption over responsibility. Would we demand responsibility from our government when we run our own households on credit card debt? Why would we vote for higher taxes when we're offered the alternative of 'all for nothing'?

Now the public simultaneously demands and rejects government commitment to programs that might deal with deficits, healthcare, unemployment…you name it! We want our government services, but we have been taught that we don’t have to pay for them. 67% favor balancing the budget even in recession; yet an even greater margin rejects the kind of spending cuts that would deliver this objective.

The public doesn’t watch CNN, or listen to public radio---or even Glenn Beck! We watch American Idol. We live in Playland. The most successful politicians are those who can offer the impossible with a straight face. Scott Brown, our new darling from Massachusetts, is going to balance our budget and cut taxes even more by "cutting government waste". (Have we heard this before?) Here's what we have not heard: “I’m going to cut military spending by 45%, legalize drugs, eliminate the tax exemption for mortgages over $85,000, eliminate farm subsidies, clean up the prescription drug fiasco, re-regulate and tax the financial services industry, stop water projects…”

Instead, Republicans reiterate their mantra of “tax and spend Democrats”, assuring us that any contrary messages come from “liberal media”. "Liberal media", Hah! There’s a serious disconnect when the “liberal media” is owned by a handful of rich, Republican industrialists. But it's enough to bamboozle voters. (A liberal media would have mobilized enough public skepticism to head off our recent wars by exposing the lies behind that mess.)

If we are going to turn this country around, we must realize that our childish expectations are what drive our politicians to treat us like children. We vote for irresponsible government, and we get what we demand. Some think that Democratic majorities in both houses of congress should be expected to push forward responsible legislation; but we now have 15 “new” (corporate) Democrats in the senate, and about 55 in the house. The far-right is on the march, propelled by middle America, to support policy that’s contrary to their own interests. (See What’s Wrong with Kansas.)

Republicans continue to run on promises of lower taxes, decrying “tax and spend Democrats”. To achieve endorsement, the party has a "No New Tax" pledge that all faithful are expected to take. I hear friends and acquaintances claim: “I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal”. What does that mean? Fiscal conservatism is a political term used in North America to describe a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending….(straight from Wikipedia). “Tax and spend”, my friends, (long-ago discarded by all parties) may be political liberalism, but it is fiscal conservatism. Borrow and spend, by any definition is fiscal “liberalism”, for lack of a more descriptive term. Those who utter this mantra probably voted for Reagan, if not Bush. Yet both of these men were "fiscal liberals and social conservatives."

Let’s take a look at some figures:

Removing politics from the equation, the entitlement figures for the next 30 years are staggering. Even from President Obama we find a disturbing lack of candor. Assuming full economic recovery, the shortfall of receipts for the next ten years is expected to be $8.5 Trillion! 43% of the budget during this period will be consumed by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (health insurance for the poor). The mass retirement of "baby boomers" propels this sea of red ink and will drive it higher. Essentially the budget will be set up to transfer wealth from young workers to retired boomers. This dilemma cannot be managed without draconian tax increases or large cuts in other government programs.

The irony, as so often is the case, is that reality lies 180 degrees from "common knowledge". "Conservatives" rage over "tax and spend" Democrats. They point their fingers at programs for the poor and indigent, while oblivious to corporate welfare and "welfare for the rich". The primary responsibility goes to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who lied their way to power promising "tax cuts" for the rich and "voodoo economics". But the real onus falls on us, voters from Kansas and 49 other states, who returned these two men to office even after we could see what they were doing. The programs that we all expect and receive threaten to bury us. We tolerate political hacks who pander to greed by telling us they'll cut taxes "by eliminating waste" in government, while we drive our own families to the precipice on credit card debt.

Do-nothing Republicans and scared Democrats are not moving at this time of economic emergency. But the longer we delay real budget reform, the greater will be the stress on our beleaguered currency. At some point we will no longer be able to sell debt on the world market. Then, look out! The ensuing crisis will compel abrupt measures that make today’s choices look like a bunny slope. Good luck.

Jackson Dave is a staff writer for Robbinsense