The Myth of Cutting Entitlement Spending Entirely to Balance the Budget

When it comes to balancing the federal budget, we often hear proposed solutions that suggest cutting all entitlement spending. However, such a radical approach would have severe and unintended consequences. In this article, we will explore why such a move is not only impractical but also detrimental to societal well-being.

Understanding Entitlements

First, let's define 'entitlements.' Often mistakenly understood as funds funneled directly to individuals without any conditions, entitlements are in fact a type of government spending that recipients are entitled to under the law. Examples include Social Security, Medicare, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

The Need for Balance

There are two primary methods to balance the budget according to entitlements skeptics: drastically reducing foreign war spending and increasing taxes. While these measures might seem like straightforward solutions, their execution could lead to significant societal issues.

Impact of Complete Entitlement Cuts

Imagine a scenario where all entitlement spending was cut. This radical change would not only devastate millions of families who rely on these programs but would also have far-reaching and potentially violent consequences.

Homelessness and Social Unrest The sudden increase in homelessness that would result from cutting entitlements could ignite a wave of social unrest. Without these safety nets, many individuals and families would struggle to meet basic living expenses. This could lead to widespread protests, unrest, and even violence in urban areas, making it safer for people to walk city streets unguarded a distant memory.

Veterans' Impact

The impact on veterans would be particularly grievous. Many veterans rely on Veterans Administration (VA) programs for healthcare, disability compensation, and other benefits. Cutting these entitlements would amount to adding an extra level of fun to an already challenging situation, potentially leading to a rise in veteran homelessness and a surge in veteran service organization (VSO) assistance requests.

The SNAP Program

Let's focus on one specific entitlement program: SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). This program provides food assistance to those in need. The SNAP program ensures that families can purchase food, a necessity for survival, but with restrictions on using it for alcohol, tobacco, or non-food items.

In 2011, I, like many others, had to rely on SNAP due to unemployment in my household. In Oregon, a family of three receives a maximum of $504 per month, from which $30 must be set aside for taxes. This leaves $352.80 for 30.42 average days of meals. Dividing this amount by the number of meals (three per day for three people) results in just under $1.29 per meal. Clearly, this budget is insufficient for three square meals a day.

Consequences of SNAP Cuts

Imagine the drastic consequences of cutting off such benefits to millions of families. Some families would be forced to sell assets, such as cars, to cover their basic needs. Others would be forced to exhaust their savings, potentially losing their homes due to mortgage payments they can no longer afford. The emotional and financial stress such cuts would place on individuals and families would be immense.

Moreover, homelessness and hungry children would become more prevalent. School lunch programs, which are partially subsidized by SNAP, would suffer, leading to deteriorating academic performance. Additionally, cuts to agricultural subsidies could lead to skyrocketing food prices, making it even more difficult for those who rely on SNAP to afford a basic diet.

The Ethical and Practical Considerations

From an ethical standpoint, it is unacceptable to cut all entitlement spending, as these programs serve millions of people in the most vulnerable positions. Many Americans, like myself, have either directly or indirectly benefited from these programs during challenging times. Ending them entirely would be akin to a Purge scenario, where the government enacts sudden and extreme measures that harm the very people it is meant to protect.

Alternative Solutions

Instead of cutting entitlements, a more constructive approach would be to:

Reassess foreign military spending: Reducing war spending to a reasonable level without compromising national security. Implement progressive tax reforms: Increasing taxes on corporations and high-income earners to finance public services without overly burdening middle and lower-income families. Improve program efficiency: Streamlining and improving the processes and oversight of entitlement programs to ensure that funding reaches those who truly need it without waste.

Conclusion

In conclusion, cutting entitlement spending entirely to balance the budget would not only be impractical but also devastating to the lives of millions of Americans. It is imperative that policymakers consider the long-term consequences of such decisions and seek more balanced and sustainable solutions.