Who does the word “entitled” best describe?

 a) Mitt Romney or b) Welfare Recipients

 

Each time social welfare programs are cut, US politicians are sending a clear message: if you are poor, it is a personal failing and we [the government] won’t give you ‘charity’ for long. Blaming the poor for their poverty is a wonderful way to make conservative politicians seem generous because if American people begin to believe that ANY welfare programs are simply rewarding the lazy, even minimal food stamps make republicans look like real softies. Unfortunately, capitalism is a competitive system, meaning that there will always be some winners: the rich, and some losers: the poor. To be rich often seems to require being a ruthless competitor. Not providing the basics (like food) necessary for life for the is something beyond cruel: it is un-American. All Americans are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The simple, yet rarely discussed fact is that without food, none of these three entitlements are feasible for any individual. Food is essential for life, which I’m sure Republicans (who are theoretically responsible for ensuring American government encourages the flourishing of the nation) are aware of. They also know that there will always be individuals in need of food in a capitalist system, and should theoretically be capable of inferring that it is their duty to ensure that the natural rights of the poor aren’t eliminated depending upon the whims of private sector contributions to our patchwork of charities. If all Americans are guaranteed life, they are necessarily guaranteed the basic supplies necessary to sustain life (yes Mitt, for more than two years).

Opposing or limiting welfare programs on certain values like “personal responsibility, work, and thrift” which can serve “as an alternative to governmental programs” is a fascinating proposal! Apparently, Mitt Romney and the conservative party don’t have good irony detectors. Let me spell it out for Mitt specifically: if he feels government needs to be structured in order to promote those American virtues, then he must have a policy proposal in which poor people to teach rich people (who may have never worked a minimum wage job in their lives and never balanced an impossible budget) about how to attain the sought after values of hard work and thrift. Yep, I’m calling for a Neowelfare system in which no one is “entitled” to making 43 million dollars in two years and denying others the basics. In the Neowelfare program, we don’t conflate money and personal worth and speak instead about getting people what people need to live. As Rawls explained, “An unequal distribution of wealth and resources is justified only if it is better for those at the bottom of society.” Hmm, how well have deregulation and low tax rates for the wealthy worked out for those at the bottom of society? Not well! (and given the financial crisis, it hasn’t worked out very well for those at the top either). Well, I guess it is time for “a redistribution of that wealth and power in a more nearly equal manner” because “People can enjoy neither equal liberty nor equal opportunity when there are great and unjustified inequalities of wealth” (75). And don’t worry, Mitt, I too like the values of hard work and thrift! I have no problem with a “workfare” program for those who REALLY need it.

When entitlement programs come with requirements like work, time-limits, child-benefit limits, the message is even clearer: private money buys the freedom to have any sort of work ethic an individual wants and no one dreams up training programs to increase work-ethic (heiress, anyone?) but when you’re poor you have three choices: work for your benefits, beg or starve. Money, to an extent, is the currency of our freedom. Some freedoms are guaranteed—the freedom to live is one. It is government’s job to protect our freedoms.

Sometimes john Stewart says it best: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-24-2012/indecision-2012---i-know-what-you-did-last-quarter