Can we consider two stupid wars an entitlement?
Here’s why I ask.
The Illinois Policy Institute is a corporate think tank and lobbying outfit that has led the charge against public employee pensions in the state.
Today they link to a Wall Street Journal article that makes the claim that entitlements cost too much and are ruining the American character, whatever that means.
As Americans opt to reward themselves ever more lavishly with entitlement benefits, the question of how to pay for these government transfers inescapably comes to the fore. Citizens have become ever more broad-minded about the propriety of tapping new sources of finance for supporting their appetite for more entitlements. The taker mentality has thus ineluctably gravitated toward taking from a pool of citizens who can offer no resistance to such schemes: the unborn descendants of today’s entitlement-seeking population.
The taker mentality.
When the WSJ talks about the taker mentality they’re not talking about Wall Street or the bank bailouts.
The WSJ is talking about Medicare, Social Security and unemployment insurance.
Help for the neediest is an entitlement. It undermines the American character. And it costs over $2 trillion last year.
Here’s what the WSJ doesn’t mention. Nor did any Republican last week. Nor is it rarely mentioned by a Democrat.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us twice that amount. $4 trillion and counting.
It accounts for 26% of the current national debt.
As far as I’m concerned those who supported these wars or voted to fund them are not allowed to complain about the national debt. Democrat or Republican.
So I’m asking again. Are stupid wars an entitlement?
Or are entitlements only the things we spend money on that help people? Payments to seniors and pensioners that were promised to them?
Wars or social programs? Which determines the nature of the American character more?