Entitlement: Deserved or Undeserved?
- hoadleyc70
- Mar 18
- 4 min read
Entitlement. That might be the word of the week. We pretty much are hearing it daily. With all the political hullabaloo over budgets, firings, DOGE, etc. I got a little curious about the topic and went searching. The word derives from Latin and refers to the giving of a title. In the reconstructed ancestor language of many European, Iranian and Indian languages, the root word implies something being designated or given status or a right. There are two modern definitions: 1. Sense of deserving special things or more than what is due. 2. A right to something granted or deserved. I think the first definition fits the history of the word, but after the French Revolution and WWII the second definition became a general understanding.
Do we have carry-over of World ancestral ideas of class and entitlement as defined under number one above? If so, does that difference in meaning create tension and conflict within modern democracies, politics, and human rights? There is certainly plenty of conflict between conservative and liberal camps regarding entitlement programs in the US federal budget. Each side uses the word like a weapon aimed at particular demographics. So who is entitled to what resources?
The Trump administration and DOGE under the direction of Elon Musk identify entitlement programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veterans Benefits as a drain on the US budget. While many liberals see corporate welfare as the largest drain there is some truth in both perspectives. After all, social welfare costs accounted for 30% of the budget in 1960 but in recent years takes 60% of the budget. This is because of aging population, increased life expectancy and rising healthcare costs.
Corporate welfare includes government aid in the form of tax breaks, grants and subsidies. It does not include government contracts awarded to private businesses. The costs to the taxpayers range from $181 billion to $780 billion for corporate welfare. The top government contracts in FY 2024 combined for a total of $408 billion. That is only the top contracts, not all contracts. According to Google AI, corporate welfare costs taxpayers more than social programs. I am not sure if that is true but we can certainly say that some money in more people’s hands has the potential to positively impact economy than a lot of money in the hands of a few.
The benefits of such programs is largely for the corporations themselves with no evidence I could find of funds being passed on to employees. Perhaps this should be a requirement of recipients. Critics say corporate welfare can distort the market and make for an uneven playing field. It also increases cost of government and reduces resources for other priorities. Corporate welfare are budget items that can be argued as unnecessary spending. Are corporations entitled to taxpayer money? Many people, including myself, view corporate welfare as entitlement defined as something special granted, not due by right or earned.
US social welfare in FY 2024 totaled $1.05 trillion, including unemployment benefits. As costly as it is during this time of aging Baby Boomers, social welfare programs are still essential to having a functioning society. Some programs are literal entitlements because taxpayers pay into the fund until they qualify for benefits. Others are considered entitlements because recipients must qualify to be entitled. Veterans’ benefits are entitlements as their contribution was service in the US military. Thus, social welfare programs meet the definition of entitlement as a right to something granted or deserved.
Even programs without participant contribution contribute to the overall welfare of citizens and the economy. Child poverty rates are lower with SNAP, child tax credit and housing subsidies. Children whose families receive social welfare dollars are said to perform better in the labor market as adults. Social security reduces poverty in seniors which is currently at 9% but would easily be four times higher without Social Security. This does not even take into account the impact of Medicaid and Medicare.
Entitlement to social welfare programs should be an easy sell in providing stability and reducing inequality. It is a problem if its share of the federal budget stays at 60% or increases, however. What are our options?
Reduce benefits, increase cost-sharing, change eligibility, adjust the Social Security tax, modify the benefit formula, or ride it out through the baby boomers? Not sure that last option is wise. However, Social Security tax is currently only paid on the first $147,000 of individual income. Raising or eliminating that limit could be a game changer in the federal budget picture. I would like to see this one explored more to see if that is where we want to go from here.
What do you think? Please share your thoughts and opinions in the comments section and have conversations with others and your members of Congress.
Sources:
Comments