Enitlement – welfare – charity?

We hear a lot about “entitlements” which ultimately translates into welfare or government subsidy in one form or another. The word does not exist in either the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution.

To be accurate, the word “entitle” and “entitled” do.
In the Declaration, it states, “ . . . to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them . . .”

In the Constitution, it states, Art. I, Sec. 2 [3] “ . . . each State [as named] . . . shall be entitled to (a specific number of representatives); Art. II, Sec. 1. “ . . .each state shall appoint . . . a Number of Electors . . .to which the State may be entitled in the Congress . . .” And Art. IV, Sec. 2 “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

Despite this, we read and hear continuously about “entitlements” such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. And, those on welfare are “entitled” to food stamps from the U.S. government.

If the founding documents be properly interpreted and understood, the only things to which a citizen is “entitled” are: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! There is no mention of government handouts, subsidies, loans, grants or other gifts from the taxpayers.

Welfare is mentioned, but only in the Constitution’s Preamble and Art. I, Sec. 8. Both refer to general welfare. Note particularly that the word is modified by the adjective general. Logically that means “all”. In other words, whatever is promoted must be of benefit to “all the citizens”, not just a minority, special interest group, industry, business or profession. Consider then any or all of the “subsidies” and “grants” provided today to a variety of just such entities. The question must be asked, “are such government disbursements constitutional?”

The word “charity” is not found in either document. That is probably because it was not considered a function of government by the Founders. Charity was something that individuals dispensed to those they considered in need and for whom they believed it would be helpful and constructive. There is and always has been a major difference between charity which reflects genuine compassion on the part of the giver and welfare as meted out by a government bureaucrat. For one the recipient is normally appreciative. For the other, the Pavlov dog syndrome comes into play and the individual rapidly accepts the idea of “entitlement” on a continuing basis.

So how did we get into the present situation where almost half the population “believes” they are entitled to something from the public treasury? It can’t be from reading the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence since neither document speaks to such activities.

Entitlements then appear to be something the politicians have dreamed up to make themselves more important to their constituents who will vote to continue them in office. By promising some benefit the constituents are lead to believe they are getting something for nothing. This is a fraud of the worst order since there are no free lunches! Such government largess serves to destroy the character of the very people it is supposed to assist. The fall of Rome is an outstanding historical example.

The difficulty appears to come from the lack of personal responsibility on the part of the individual citizen. In accepting the “gift” proffered by the politician, the voter changes from being a master to a servant. Unfortunately, the road back and rehabilitation require massive education of the voter.

It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves: and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.” 1820 September 28. (to William C. Jarvis)
That’s my view. What’s yours?