Reforming the Entitled

In recent decades (yes, decades), much has been said about reforming the cumbersome entitlement programs that have ballooned since first inception. A few dabbles at reform have been relatively successful, but political posturing especially during election periods reveals a lack of honesty and will when it comes to REAL reform.

That being said, the entitlement reform that is the topic of this post is “political entitlement.” Performing a few hits on a search engine, I learned that the politicians, serial killers, and sociopaths share several similar traits. One of these shared traits is a “grand sense of entitlement.” I give you Lisa Murkowski, Charlie Crist, and Charlie Rangel.

Not only do politicians in Washington feel they are entitled to keep the seats held by their respective states, but they also vote for themselves rather extravagant benefits at the expense of the taxpayer.

Though it’s oft told, it is not true that our elected officials are not participants in Social Security. Since the early 1980s they have been. As well, the 1980s brought reforms to the basic retirement options in which they can participate. What IS true and alarming is that after five years of service, a member of Congress will be entitled to a retirement check. Of course, rules apply based on age, years of service, and so on. In final analysis though, “Congressional pension benefits are 2-3 times more generous than what a similarly-salaried executive could expect to receive upon retiring from the private sector.”

Many of you may remember (SHOULD remember!) the President stating that all Americans should have the healthcare insurance options that those in Washington have. Ahh, to be so fortunate. They actually get:
• a choice of 10 healthcare plans that provide access to a national network of doctors, as well as several HMOs that serve each member's home state.
• special treatment at Washington's federal medical facilities
• access to their own pharmacy, doctors, nurses and medical technicians in an office conveniently located between the House and Senate chambers (for a few hundred dollars a month).

“In 2008, taxpayers spent about $15 billion to insure 8.5 million federal workers and their dependents. By contrast, 85% of private companies offering health coverage provide their employees one type of plan -- take it or leave it.”

Not only do we need to change the faces in DC, we need to change the employment laws on the books for these folks. We need to return the legislators to their home communities to continue to serve at the fire department, a church, or a PTA. Rather than spending a full career gathering power and perks at the expense of the American electorate, they should leave Washington to earn a salary and retirement pension that doesn't gouge the taxpayer.

Read more about Congressional Retirement Benefits

Julie Ranson is a college professor, wife, and mother who lives in Virginia.

Entitlements, Recipients, & Contributors by Julie Ranson

In my last post on entitlements, I focused on the growing bloat of the welfare state in the U.S. This time, let’s talk about the recipient class and the provider class in this entitlement nation.

One of my favorite radio talk show hosts, Andrew Wilkow, speaks often about the recipient class and its members’ status as “zero-liability voters.” A zero-liability voter is a member of the recipient class who receives more money back from the government than he/she put in. We can also call the recipient a “non-contributor” or a “net consumer.” (Among other things….)

FDR's New Deal and the Earned Income Credit (EIC) are significant factors in the growth of the citizen class. The EI credit has been expanded for years 2009 and 2010. Those who earn this credit file taxes and often receive a refund over and above anything paid in. Roughly 40% of Americans pay zero or less in federal taxes. What happens if or when this recipient class exceeds 50%? Imagine the power this group will have to consistently elect those who will continue to pay them. What courageous politicians will be willing to cut entitlement programs and, essentially, commit political suicide?

On the other hand, what motivation does a recipient have to get off of welfare? Consider this scenario that repeats itself across the country and around the globe:

A lady in business for herself needed help to meet the demands of her customers. She has hired five different helpers during the past year; each has, after varying lengths of time, simply not shown up for work. The latest hire, who showed the most promise, was given a Christmas bonus and a Christmas gift, after which she never returned. Each of these employees was, in general, poorly educated and receiving, in one form or another, monthly handouts from the state or federal government. There was, therefore, little need for them to hold down a job.

This recipient class has no feeling for the provider class. Rich people can “afford” to pay more, can’t they? Isn’t this what liberals say too often? Listening to a liberal radio talk show host right after healthcare passage, I heard the host opine that “finally the rich will pay their Fair Share.” Another viewpoint decries tax cuts as welfare for the rich. “The key Republican tax proposals during the Bush administration have amounted to massive amounts of welfare for a class of Americans who don't need the help.” It’s THEIR money the government lets them keep. Hardly welfare, but such is the viewpoint of the left.

With a burgeoning federal deficit and no spending cuts in sight, the government will need to seek out more taxpayers or increase the taxes of those who are Taxed Enough Already.