The Enititlement Polka

First a hurricane, then I spent a good part of this past week fighting a virus. What next? Well, how about a rehash of a couple of 2011 posts I did on government entitlements? What with all the recent talk of "tax reform" and government aid for people in Texas, Puerto Rico, and right here in Florida (though not in my neck of the woods so much), it's still an issue on our doorsteps. And it's still a reminder that the church at large is not doing it's job, which is why the feds are doing it instead.

There's a minor exception to the trend in things like MediShare. But last I looked into that, it was worthless for people who need such things as maintenance prescription drugs. I hope that has changed.

**

Ruminations by various parties in the news over the current financial crisis have focused on the alleged importance of what are termed "entitlements" -- things like Social Security and Medicare. I have certain views on the practicality of such programs and whether they'll survive, but that won't be the subject today. The subject will be why they came about as a result of our failure.

Proponents of these entitlements describe them as sort of social contract. To my recollection this language goes back to their origins in Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Perhaps they go back even further. But the social contract they describe is actually the sort of thing the church was supposed to be enacting all along.

Here's what I mean. In the manner of the ancient collectivists, the church was supposed to pool members' resources for the greater good. If we had this today, the upshot in practical terms would be as follows: Have you been diagnosed with cancer, and need treatment you don't have the money for? Your brothers and sisters in Christ would pool their resources to help you pay for the treatment. Or even better, the community would have already pooled resources beforehand, anticipating that someone, someday would need some expensive treatment.

Were you in an accident? Did your house get destroyed in a fire? Yes, again, that shared pool of resources would be your supply. Now imagine what this would have meant. We'd never have needed any such things as health, life, or property insurance. We'd never have needed Social Security or Medicare. We'd also have a much better sense of community as we shared in each others' sufferings.

Of course, this all assumes that the church has enough members, and enough willing and able to share this way. I think we do have the numbers even now. But willingness -- doubtful. Especially since the government took away that role in part because we weren't fulfilling it. Any contribution would amount to a double dip.

In a nutshell, the Body of Christ was (is) itself a social contract -- a covenant. It included in its terms pledges of mutual assistance within that Body, and then, by extension of missions, enacting that pledge in the broader world as well. By now, though, it's probably too late. We've lost our chance to the government, and the sense of entitlement for entitlements is so entrenched that it wouldn't be easy to change.

We probably don't want the government entitlement system to collapse, but there are times when I get the sense that such a crisis might be the best thing for the church to get it off its backside. A little persecution and suffering of that sort would be great way to shake Western Christians out of their SUVs...and their sense of complacency.


As a follow up to [the above], a reader sent me this quote:

...I am willing to-believe that, notwithstanding the aid already furnished, a donation of seed grain to the farmers located in this region, to enable them to put in new crops, would serve to avert a continuance or return of an unfortunate blight.

And yet I feel obliged to withhold my approval of the plan, as proposed by this bill, to indulge a benevolent and charitable sentiment through the appropriation of public funds for that purpose.

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadfastly resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that though the people support the Government the Government should not support the people.

The friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow-citizens in misfortune. This has been repeatedly and quite lately demonstrated. Federal aid in such cases encourages the expectation of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character, while it prevents the indulgence among our people of that kindly sentiment and conduct which strengthens the bonds of a common brotherhood.

The author: President Grover Cleveland. The date: February 16, 1887, in a response to the House of Representatives.

Try to imagine Barack Obama (or even George Bush, for that matter...or now, Donald Trump) sending this out as a response to requests for funding for entitlement programs, and you'll have a good idea where and why we've failed -- and also get an idea why the Feds were never supposed to run as much as they do. Too many conflicting interests lead to compromises where no one is happy -- and then everyone turns out a bunch of the folks in office and the whole thing resets, leaving behind no one except the likes of Robert Byrd who serve the self-interests of their constituency.