When Entitlements Go Too Far

When it comes to economic entitlements, many can’t see the forest for the trees. Most socially well-meaning Democrats seem to fall under one of two opposite ends of the spectrum. On one hand, they’re represented by the entitled poor, who are disproportionately minority. Their party keeps the hook baited just enough with entitlements to keep them from straying - a legal way to buy votes, financed by us all.

The other side is represented by coastal white wealth, who want to feel like they’re looking out for the little guy and delude themselves into believing that their policies accomplish this. In doing so, they either fail to recognize that many of the poor hate them anyway, or patronizingly ignore that fact because they think they know better. Many minorities are well aware of this patronization and reject it, rightly viewing it as an insulting supposition that they can’t achieve their goals on their own.

Continuing an environment based upon entitlements creates a perpetual cycle, a carousel of existence that minimizes both the ability and the incentive to get off. Handling a group with an approach of here’s enough support to survive indefinitely, but never to truly thrive creates that aforementioned carousel, from which the illusory movement of spinning in place removes all motivation to walk on one’s own two feet to seek greener pastures. Its attempts to lift people up - which, in times of short-term need, it can certainly accomplish - when implemented long term, simply hold those same “beneficiaries” down.

People are often dismissive of money they didn’t actually earn. Many poor people (with poverty contributing to a lack of education in money management, and poor money management in turn contributing to poverty, a vicious cycle) simply do not possess the tools necessary to capitalize on their entitlements to achieve financial independence. This is often seen with lottery winners who come into instant riches beyond what they would have earned in their lifetimes, yet frequently lose all of their newfound wealth due to poor money management. Statistics show that more lottery winners (per capita) will declare bankruptcy within 3-5 years than the average American.

Excessive entitlements also have the effect of stifling society’s advancements long term. Free money removes motivation; aside from the lucky few who are passionate about their careers, most people work solely to get ahead financially. As entitlements expand and become accessible to greater numbers of people, those who receive them often eschew working and grow as a voter force, which manipulates legislation towards further expansion of benefits. As their numbers continue to grow, the comparative numbers of

those who work to contribute and finance such entitlements shrink, with fewer and fewer paying for more and more. Accordingly, their collective motivation drops, in what is seen as a fruitless effort to work in support of others.

The uber wealthy, who many would like to see foot the bills for this, remain insulated because they can flee the country or keep their money in protected overseas accounts. But this especially applies to those on the economic borderline - if you earn $40,000 a year working, but can receive welfare, housing, food stamps, and medical benefits worth nearly that much to stay home, you’re more likely to quit and ride the system.

We saw something similar to this with expanded unemployment and supplement checks during Covid. Many people milked those benefits out as long as possible and the national workforce dissipated, creating havoc on supply chains and, by extension, the nation’s economy (which ironically hurt the poor the most). Mathematically, the number of taxpaying contributors will decrease to the point where the recipients will be in line to receive more than can be supplied. It is an unsustainable model as currently constructed, where politicians trash the future to buy votes today, and it helps contribute to the comparative lack of socioeconomic progress amongst minorities.

Why not funnel that entitlement money toward job creation and training? Or toward breaking through the “cultural” cycle of single-parent households to promote intact nuclear families? Some will certainly find such thought marginalizing, but it has been statistically proven - more than any other hypotheses - that two-parent families produce significantly greater odds for success. We can complain all we like about the lack of fairness in that statement, or that it carries racial undertones, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

None of this is meant to suggest that society shouldn’t provide help to the truly needy. It should be short-term, however, and designed to be used as a springboard to financial independence. Giving an underprivileged person support for a year, under the condition that he or she undergoes job training and placement, would significantly shrink the entitlement rolls. This was the original intention of entitlements when they were created during the Great Depression, and it accomplishes multiple positive outcomes.

Firstly, when people become self-sufficient they acquire a greater respect for their surroundings since they had to work to develop them. They have pride in what they’ve achieved and will continue to work to maintain and improve those things, chipping away at urban decay. This, by extension, sets an example to others in their circle who might have always considered such achievements out of reach, giving them the inspiration to accomplish something productive for society.

Secondly, it helps break the chain of indoctrinated entitlement living, as more and more people come to the realization that they don’t need wealthy white money to survive. Pride in self-sufficiency replaces caste acceptance, and dreams begin to blossom. People follow the examples of others, and if you grow up as a child of generational welfare, that’s what becomes your aspirational normal. When Mom and/or Dad have always worked, however, then that method of family support is what children learn.

Thirdly, the additional availability of funds created by subtracting from the entitlement rolls can then be redirected toward those who are really incapable of self-care (elderly, orphaned, mentally and physically disabled, etc.), a population on which race has zero bearing.

Improving the fortunes of the underprivileged cannot be achieved by excessive entitlements. Since the beginning of their implementation, the wealth gap in America has only widened - not because they should receive even more, but because settling for their inherent ceiling prevents the greater personal achievement achieved via creativity and hard work. When people have to take care of themselves, they accept no limits to how high they can climb.

For a more in-depth analysis of entitlements and other related subjects, I invite you to read and comment on my book, “A White Man’s Perspectives on Race and Racism”, available at smashwords.com/books/view/1184004