Why is it that so many people feel entitled to certain things in life? These days, with increasing regularity, people feel they deserve or are entitled to, whatever they feel they need or worse, want and if they can’t get it, then others should be forced to provide it or someone is to blame for them not getting it. Here are some examples of what many people feel they are entitled to:
- Health insurance
- Higher wages
- Prescription drugs
- A better life
- Better schools
- To be famous
- Better working conditions
- Air Conditioning
- Right to vote
- 2 weeks paid vacation
- A house and/or a car
- Better job
What’s worse is that many Politicians feel this way as well and they fight over how to give it. Back in the 2000 race, both Bush and Gore were fighting over prescription drugs and how Govco would be providing it to seniors. Can someone please show me where in the Constitution it states that Govco should be providing this for anyone free of charge?
The big talk of the day is Health Insurance or, as Liberals like to put it, “Universal Health Care”. John Edwards loves to rip on Wal-Mart and how they don’t provide adequate health insurance. SO? They don’t have to provide ANYTHING of the sort. No one is forcing you to work there but for some strange reason, Edwards feels that Wal-Mart should pay for your health care. Well, actually, he and other Liberals feel that Govco should provide it for you. Have you heard the horror stories from other countries that have socialized medicine? Have you had to be treated at one? I have and let me tell you, it’s no picnic!
How about the Medical Leave Act? Bush Sr. signed this into law. People felt they were entitled to be able to have a kid, get 6 weeks paid time off work, then be able to come back to work with no worries about their job. Some companies were already doing this. Others were not. Sad as it my seem…that’s life. You could either choose to work their or not but then along comes Govco and forces companies to give it to you. That means that these small companies get hurt when they have to pay someone for work they are not doing.
My company gives me 25 days a year PTO. It’s great….but they don’t have to. The fact they do though makes it much more pleasant to work there and actually encourges people to want to work there. I have a choice but how long until Govco decides to make something like that mandatory?
By the way, although Liberals take the cake in regards to wanting to just give things to people, Republicans are fast on the way to beating them to the punch. In the days of George W. Bush growing Govco more than any other President in history, the GOP really doesn’t have much of a leg to stand on.
The bottom line is responsibility. People lack it or don’t want it. They don’t want to take responsibility for their life. They would rather have Govco be the nanny state for them. They don’t want to take responsibility for their actions so they demand the right to abortion. They don’t want to save for retirement so they demand that Govco provide it for them. They invent these “rights” and then fully expect Govco to back them up.
Speaking of entitlements, Hillary is a great example. Doesn’t it seem that she feels as if she is entitled to the Presidency? The Media sure makes is seem that way as well.
No moratorium request here. Just an expectation of individual responsibility.
PS: Can you show me where the US Constitution provides a right to vote?
The Moratorium Site 
April 8, 2007 at 12:07 pm |
The preamble to the constitution states that the US government was ordained in part to provide for the general welfare of the people. So with regard to healthcare, the question would be, “Should this fall under the scope of general welfare?”
Universal healthcare does not need to be authorized by the constitution to be a legitimate undertaking of government. The constitution doesn’t authorize building the interstate system either, but no serious person would argue that it shouldn’t have been built. Some services (like the interstate system or the military), are best provided by government. The debate over universal healthcare is not a debate over its constitutionality. It’s a debate over whether it’s an enterprise best done collectively (i.e. by the federal government).
The 15th and 19th amendments to the US constitution guarantee the right to vote.
April 8, 2007 at 10:27 pm |
JH, the preamble is never used as a way of exercising power. No Constitutional scholar would ever cite the preamble as an authorization of power. If the preamable grants such a broad use of power to “insure domestic tranquility” or “promote the general welfare” then the rest of the constitution is pretty much unnecessary and all but redundant. Why talk about a post office in the constitution if it is already granted under the general “welfare” clause? Why give Congress the power to raise an army if it is already covered in the preamble?
In regards to the 15th and 19th -true, they do forbid discrimination in voting on the basis of race or sex however these prohibitions don’t give us a universal right to vote.
April 9, 2007 at 9:25 am |
I suppose they were just whistling with their hands in their pockets when they wrote the preamble, hoping no one would take it too seriously. Whether the preamble authorizes or forbids anything or not isn’t even the point anyway. The point is universal health care is not a constitutional issue. Nothing in it forbids it or mandates it. If you want to argue for or against it, you need to do so on other grounds.
Those amendments do give a right to vote. In fact, those are the exact words they use, “…the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied…”
April 9, 2007 at 10:09 am |
JH, I challenge you to point to anyone who used the preamble as a basis for an arguement of law (and won). Can you show me a constitutional scholar who seriously referenced it? Again, I point out that if the preamble could be used as law in such a broad general sense, why get specific in the constitution?
Those amendments do not give a universal right to vote. You cannot deny the vote based on race or gender but it does not give a universal right to vote. Note that in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote.
April 9, 2007 at 12:41 pm |
The preamble isn’t a basis for actual law, but that doesn’t mean it’s just window dressing either. It merely shows that the founders intended government to provide for the general welfare. What constitutes general welfare, is of course, open to debate.
In a technical sense, you’re right. The constitution only forbids denying the right to vote to people based on gender, age, poll-taxes, and race. Legislatures are still free to deny the right to vote to homosexuals, people born in the year 1973, those who like their eggs sunny side up, and people whose names start with an M, a J, or a P. At least they would be free to do it for the 2 days or so before a constitutional amendment which struck the legislation down was ratified. The general assumption in America is that all adult citizens can vote. It isn’t necessary to provide a universal voting amendment because no one in modern times is so foolish as to try to restrict voting.
April 9, 2007 at 1:03 pm |
Concerning the voting, that is true. I was just pointing out that contrary to the beliefs of many folks out there, there is not “right to vote” found in the constitution.
Concerning the preamble, my point is that one cannot use the preamble for a basis of law and thus cannot use the “promote the general welfare” to cover whatever one wants. I don’t think it is window dressing either BTW. My point in this post was, in one way, to point out that there is no “right” to health coverage. Many people feel that they are entitled to it or that it is a “right” which it is not and, IMHO, never should be.
April 9, 2007 at 1:14 pm |
BTW, thanks for contributing JH. I appreciate the dialogue.
April 9, 2007 at 5:55 pm |
Any time.
September 20, 2007 at 6:58 pm |
Using the preamble as the impetus for the creation of our emerging socialist state is silly. I’m guaranteed a republican form of government in the Bill of Rights. This government was created to give people the opportunity to provide for themselves free of governmental interferance, not to directly provide in it’s own capacity (which, in a government for the people by the people, is actually OUR capacity). Instead, we now have a government that has forgotten it’s primary intent, and thanks to the Great Society and hte New Deal, is so infused with Socialism, that it is destined to economically collapse on itself insdie of 40 years, just like the Socialist States of old.
With half of our Federal Budget destined for Socialist Programs like Welfare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid growing to over 75% by 2040, we will soon no longer be able to fund things like your referenced Federal Highway system, our own military defense because we will be so mired down in providing your “general welfare” there will be money left for nothing else. Whether it’s Constitutional or not (and it’s not) is that the right future for us? How can you support the expansion, or even continued levels of our Socialist Programs with our future so clearly laid out in front of us? How can defending your interpretation of the Preamble be so important that you’d sacrafice everything else to defend it?
It’s sad we are so unable to learn from history’s lessons, and the mistakes so clearly ratified by our predecessors. Socialism fails. It’s not even a discussion point. It’s a law of history.
May 12, 2008 at 6:57 am |
[…] to Roland at The Moratorium Site for the […]