 "Photo: N/A")
There are many issues facing our country today. They range from terrorism, to our economy, to our national debt. Yet there is one issue that doesn’t grab headlines on MSNBC, CNN or Fox. In fact, it often fails to enter the political discussion in this country at all.
The culture of entitlement we live in today is something we cannot overlook. The founding principles of this country dictate that we all have the ability to earn prosperity through whatever means necessary within the law. As students we know this better than anyone else. The more we study, the better we do. While some of us may have to work harder to earn the same grade, we all have the ability to earn it.
Imagine though for a minute that we didn’t have to earn our grade. That if a student didn’t study hard enough and got a 1.5 GPA, the university could take a few GPA points from you and give it to that individual. Would that be fair? Would you be willing to give up any amount of your hard-earned grade point average for another student? Even if that student came from a tough family background or was otherwise disadvantaged, I would think that a majority of students would agree that the school taking your GPA to benefit someone else, be they a lazy slacker or a hardworking but disadvantaged individual, would be unfair.
The same ideas apply to almost every other aspect of our society: We have to earn prosperity. Yet some in this country have a different take on prosperity. They believe prosperity comes through the federal government, not individual effort. They believe the collective “we” will provide for them no matter what they do. They feel affluence is their right, no matter how they obtain it.
The argument that affluence is a right is a central debate to many of the issues that face our country today. An example of this is the debate over health care. Many progressives see health care as a right, a human necessity. They believe the federal government should have the ability to force one person to provide for another, that no matter how the recipient treats their body or what genetic disposition they may have, one person must provide for the well-being of another. In essence, a person is entitled to health care paid for by another.
Affluence as a right is also central to the debate over the economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the much demonized “rich,” or the top quintile of income earners in our country, pay a staggering 86 percent of the income tax. In fact, the bottom 40 percent of income earners actually get paid by the federal government through tax credits. The so-called Bush “tax cuts for the rich” actually helped the bottom half of income earners from 2000 to 2006, as they were paid more through tax credits and handouts. Yet some want the wealthy to pay even more. To them it’s not fair that some in society make so much money, so they should be forced to give that money to those less fortunate. Again, the idea that one person is responsible for the well-being of another comes into play.
It’s not that conservatives are greedy, self-centered Minotaur’s. In fact, studies show conservatives give a higher percentage of their income to charity than liberals do. Conservatives are just as compassionate as liberals. We don’t want to see anyone go hungry or without health care. We want to help others just as much as any progressive does.
The biggest disagreement that exists between the two ideologies is the role government plays in that compassion. Progressive liberals think the government is the primary vehicle to provide for those less fortunate. Moreover, they believe some people are entitled to that taxpayer help. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe it is the individual who can provide to those in need through vehicles such as volunteer organizations, church groups and other private institutions that do more than a government handout ever could and are much more efficient about it.
So to those who believe health care is a right, one person should be forced to give to another person and people are entitled to our aid, I would submit to you that other means exist to provide for those in our society who are less fortunate. Otherwise, I would appreciate you sending a letter to Chancellor Martin stating your intention to give me some of your GPA.
Matt Payne is a sophomore intending to major in Chinese ane economics. Please send all responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
8 comments
Who says the federal government will not go into the red? They run Amtrak, and that has always been in the red. And Social Security is in the red. Our budget in general is in the red, and has been for some time. A not-for-profit insurance program would cost significantly less than what Blue Cross Blue Shield, or any other insurance company could provide. It would not make sense to not switch over to the socialized option if you are an American family. This would run all other for profit companies out of business.The federal government has no business entering into the private sector. What we do need is reform. A few simple changes could fix a lot. If you allow individuals to buy across state lines just like auto insurance (Progressive.com, thegeneral.com etc.) prices would decrease significantly. The other aspect would be malpractice reform which I will not get into here. Simply changing these aspects of health care would make significant decreases in prices which allows more people to buy, that's right buy not be given, health care.
2. Try citing your "studies" next time so your reader can actually grant you some credibility