Possible GOP Presidential candidate, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum was quoted in the
LA Times on 9 April 2011 has having said to a gathering of home schoolers in California, "You have been given a great gift in growing up and living in the greatest country in the history of the world, but that freedom, that equality, that exceptionalism, is at stake right now in America if we do not replace the current president of the United States." His reasoning apparently again from the same
LA Times piece, "Once they have you hooked, once they have you dependent on them for your very life, America as we know it is over." And his real reference is the Health Care Reform Act.
First, let's take issue with what the GOP terms 'entitlement programs'. Entitlement means having a right to something with the implication in modern times that one did nothing to deserve it. If all taxpayers are paying into a system that's managed by the government to decrease costs, increase buying power, eliminate insurance company profits thereby decreasing costs further, and therefore receives government funded healthcare, this is really not an entitlement program. People pay into a system and get money out, that's not entitlement. Probably the closest example to an entitlement program in the USA is welfare, but even then, unless you are a person who comes from a family that somehow never in several generations ever paid any taxes of any kind, it is still fairly arguable you paid into a system and are getting some money back. It is time to hold conservative presidential hopefuls to task on their use of this term. Public school education seems free in the United States, but really it's paid for by property taxes collected by counties all over the USA as well as additional grants from state and federal programs which derive their money from sales and income taxes. So, again, no entitlement, people are paying and getting money back.
This idea that we have a welfare or nanny state that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman worry about incessantly is preposterous. There are only two ways for which things can be paid in a country: (A) people can pay for service on demand, or (B) the government can collect taxes and pay for them. There are many advantages to government-run programs despite the Tea Partiers fanaticism against the idea. Just as Wal-mart has found by buying in gigantic quantities they save millions. Collective services such as our Armed Forces are better paid for at the Federal level. Imagine if you had to pay a weekly fee for police and fire protection, or as the Tea Partiers and their patron Rand Paul might have you never pay for police and fire protection unless you used them. So, your house burns down and you owe the fire department $45,000. Nice! Your purse gets snatched by a thug, and you have to pay the police $8,000 to investigate. Oh, it's easy to bash government workers, government programs, and government spending until you're the one in need of the services. A gigantic percentage of the lead the USA has enjoyed over the past five decades in scientific advancement which has led to many billions of dollars in capitalism via American free enterprise can be traced back to federal tax money investing in scientific research at colleges and universities as well in military labs and NASA. Oh, it's fun to listen to Ron Paul rant about government intervention and the ideal of libetarianism, until you have to shell out $8,000 a year for private elementary school and $50,000 a year for college. How about when you have to hold a block party and get your cheapskate neighbors to all pitch in to pay for the pot hole repairs on your street? The list goes on and on and on. This is not to say that every aspect of our lives as citizens of the United States needs to be related to a government program. It's just to call for balance in understanding of the proper roll of government and to call for understanding of the contributions of collective society. Rhetoric and soundbites about government intrusion apparently get people elected, but isn't it ironic it gets the elected to the very government funded by tax payers and paying their salaries. How about making Congress a voluntary commitment without pay? Where exactly do the Pauls think their pay checks come? How nice that Rick Santorum wants to call President Obama's stated goal to achieve a national system of health care where every American is entitled to the same level of care at the same cost as every member of Congress, a threat to our way of life. Who's back has he got, yours and mine or his own? Or did I miss the part when he was Senator where he introduced a bill into the Senate requiring all Congress people to pay their own health care insurance without matching by the taxpayers or an increase in pay to cover their own premiums?