This article consists of 1,300 words.

All Aboard!

As I begin writing this article on the first full day of work for our new president, liberal Barack Obama, and our new vice president, liberal Joe Biden, I'm here to tell you it won't be an easy ride.

If I'm wrong, and it becomes an easy ride, then we will have a second four years of the Barack Obama administration. I hope for an easy ride, of course, but I'm not optimistic.

I quickly add I am only talking about what I perceive to be very liberal planned spending for individuals. Some may call these programs entitlements. I call them unmerited giveaways. I'm not talking about spending our money to maintain an adequate defense or improve control of our airways or other "public" expenditures.

Perhaps I can't see the forest for the trees, like they say, because I am a die-hard republican. During fifty years of voting, I have voted for only two democrats, one an Ohio sheriff and the other an Indiana U.S. representative. All others receiving my vote were republicans.

Still, I believe the next four years will be bumpy for those among us who believe, as I do, people should pick themselves up by the bootstraps, if necessary, and support themselves. I have learned over the years handouts lead people to expect more handouts.

I do, however, agree entitlements are appropriate for those disabled, either in the short-term or the long-term. Upon returning to able-bodied status, we should stop their entitlements.

Are they really liberal? Yes

According to the National Journal, President Obama had the most liberal voting record in the U.S Senate for 2007. Vice President Joe Biden had the third most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate for 2007.

As I remember from the 2008 presidential and vice presidential debates, both men seem to want a "better" life for the poor among us. Their use of the word better really means comfortable. They want the poor living more comfortable in the future than they live now. That's an admirable goal, a goal we should all want.

But . . .

Making life comfortable for everyone means less financial comfort for most because our taxes will increase. How else can we provide health care to all and college education to everyone leaving high school? How else can we provide adequate housing for the poor? How else can we pay for whatever new spending program Obama rolls out?

Obama will, I predict, have those with wealth give part of their money away via our federal income tax system. It has happened in the past. Remember FDR and LBJ.

I'm not complaining, only explaining.

I don't complain because I personally benefit from Social Security and Medicare. Also, I estimate receiving $10,000 in educational benefits as a result of my U.S. Navy service.

All this from taxpayers dollars, that I might continue receiving for another forty years - possible but not probable. Too, as a retired person working a few months a year, my taxes will be nil or close to nil.

My benefits and similar benefits to others only came about from sharing the wealth of others through income taxes. That's wrong!

Why Entitlements Are Wrong

Entitlements, even those for a hororable purpose such as a Pell Grant, are wrong for two reasons even if adequately controlled and no abuse occurs:

They are a vehicle for the able-bodied to become more and more unwilling to make it own their own.

They take away more and more out of the taxpayers' pocketbooks.

The individual

I stated a few paragraphs above that I have learned over the years that handouts lead people to expect more handouts. Able-bodied people should make it on their own. Too, abled-bodied people should want to make it on their own. It's good for self-esteem. We don't see many happy and productive people living on handouts. We do, however, see a lot of people without a penny ploding along and seemly just waiting for the grim reaper.

Cost to taxpayers

Aside from from individual impact, entitlements are expensive for taxpayers. One doesn't have to look far to know many people hit taxpayers hard because they don't want to support themselves. Not that they can't but they won't. It isn't uncommon for me to hear people talk about making more money on welfare than by working. Worse, abuse and lack of controls in entitlement programs costs us more than most of us realize.

Using a personal example, if not for knowing Social Security and Medicare would assist me as I aged, I might have worked smarter and I might have taken better care of myself. With Social Security benefits coming I knew years ago I should never be without food, clothing and shelter. With Medicare coming I didn't worry very much about what I ate or if I even exercised. One could argue that my attitude is a form of abuse.

Abuse and lack of controls aren't new

The New York Times published an article July 5, 1984 written by Michael Goodwin titled "THOUSANDS IN CITY ARE COLLECTING DOUBLE WELFARE PAYMENT FOR RENT." The first two paragraphs should shock you:

New York City will spend about $35 million this year to cover the overdue rent and utility bills of tens of thousands of families who have already got welfare money for those purposes, according to city welfare officials.

The officials say they make the double payments because a state regulation requires this and because the families would otherwise be evicted. When that happens, the families often seek emergency shelter from the city, which is more expensive to provide.

The article goes on to say it isn't uncommon for recipients to intentionally abuse the system.

Are we better off now than we were 25 years ago? I cannot find comparative data for the New York double rent payments but I doubt the situation has improved.

John Stossel Says

I agree completely with the opening paragraphs of John Stossel's article, The Entitlement Mess, dated June 11, 2006 and appearing at HumanEvents.com:

Congress is spending us into a hole. We hear about the cost of earmarks and the Iraq war. But what about "entitlements"?

That's the government's ironic term for programs that transfer money from people who earned it to people who didn't.

Entitlement? How can you be entitled to someone else's money?

To finance "entitlement" programs, the government threatens force against the taxpayers who provide the money. Why are people who favor compulsion called humanitarians, while those who favor freedom are stigmatized as greedy?

I also agree completely with Charles R. Kesler who is a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute. In his March 24, 2006 article, Hard Questions, appearing at The Claremont Institute website:

Yet it isn't the cost of entitlements that's the main problem. Far worse is the dependency they breed and the mentality they encourage: that our most important rights come from government, and that rights like these trump all other considerations of the common good.

Ponder This

Think about this as you go about your day.

According to a Wikipedia article, our 2007 federal expenditures were $2.730 billion. Of that, Social Security and Medicare expenditures were $1.142 billion (nearly 42%). It isn't hard to understand that as more of our population become Social Security and Medicare recipients, more money (taxpayer dollars) will have to cover additional outlays for payments to the recipients.

With a democratic majority in both chambers of the 111th Congress, look for entitlement programs like you haven't seen or dreamed of before the 2008 presidential election campaign.

Obama will get what he wants in the end.

If you pay taxes, so will you (if you know what I mean).

______________________________________________________________