That's an interesting question. My initial response is that we should use the word. But the problem is that its use privileges some government spending (for all who meet the eligibility standards regardless of the government's fiscal condition) over others, i.e. discretionary. If the goal is the validation of all social needs, then such a distinction is invidious.
Joel Blau
Eugene Coyle wrote:
Language? What does use of the word "entitlements" imply? What do I infer when reading it? What do normal people infer when hearing it? Is it a word we should use?
Gene Coyle
Max B. Sawicky wrote:
Speaking of which, our old friend Dean Baker has the honor of being criticized by name in a Washington Post editorial today, after being praised yesterday in a David Broder column, all for elaborating on the theme that the prospective SS deficits (sic) are small compared to that of Medicare.
The positive impact is to discredit the Bushists' SS crisis rhetoric. The negative is to encourage consideration of how to whack Medicare. I used some of the same points to make clear the inevitability of significant but feasible tax increases to fund the growth of entitlements.
Every time I write a budget paper, a post-Keynesian writes me to say who needs taxes, why can't the debt/GDP ratio go up to 60-70%? I told him, I don't know why not, but you don't know why.
mbs
