Entitlements

The entrepreneurial class, a small portion of the American population represented most belligerently by The Tea Party and its bullied Republican minions, has decided to push their materialist values onto the American public by dismantling the public social security network. These followers of Grover Norquist and Ronald Reagan seem to believe that insurance companies and all investment firms are Friends of The People, committed to their best interests. They decry government oversight of corporate ethics. They absolutely demand that taxes never be increased to pay for the needs of society. Greed to the point of blatant selfishness and stupidity.

On the Left, there is commensurate stupidity in policy. By insisting upon being reactionary in its posture, the Left supports entitlements and government programs which are not supported by a large majority of the American public. The Left's obstruction of immigration reform, its insistence upon allowing social services to be driven by ideology instead of science, its penchant for bloated bureaucracy have undermined its credibility with the American voter. The Obama administration's sloppy failure at effecting true health care reform, with a streamlined single-payer system which included cost-containment measures, has undermined the Left's position on entitlements. 

The whole debate on entitlements has been skewed and controlled by the Right. The very word, "entitlements", is used to cast a whining, weak, dependent light on what is really a necessary government function. Promoting the well being of its citizens is a function of government in a civilized, enlightened society. Preventing destitution, disease and desperation makes a society healthier. A healthier society is a more sustainably productive society.

Tea Party supporters, largely secure middle class folks, would deprive those less aggressively materialistic of the relatively moderate safety network which has taken the better part of a century to establish in the U.S.. The American social security network is already thin by European standards, for example. As a nation, the U.S. still combats major issues of poverty, income disparity and educational deficits. Our social security and public investment in its own overall well being needs to be bolstered, not cut.

As a humanist, I hope younger humanists realize that this battle over fiscal decisions is a humanist issue. The greater good cannot be achieved without publicly funded institutions.Government should be more secular, more scientific and more humanist in its approach to these issues. This can only be accomplished by the active involvement of humanists in government. 

Rather than fighting against the theistic logos on paper money or for the equity of atheism in the military establishment, I would like to see national humanist organizations take a loud and committed stance against the Tea Party and its attempts to erode the nation's social security apparatus. By focusing more loudly on issues that will effect all the people directly, humanists can make their presence known in society as a force for the common good.