Entitlements Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

This example Entitlements Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.

Although the majority of entitlement programs are dated to the Social Security Act of 1935, the concept of entitlement is of rather contemporary derivation. The development of the concept is a consequence of what Yale Law School professor Charles A. Reich called the “New Property” theory in legal activism in the 1960s. Reich believed that protection of individual autonomy in an “age of governmental largess” demanded recognition of a new property right in governmental benefits. According to the Social Security Act, welfare recipients did not possess the legal right to obtain welfare; rather, states could provide or deny welfare in accordance with federal laws and if the fundamental constitutional rights of a recipient were not violated by the method in which it distributed its generous assistance. Historically, welfare has been largesse from the state to the poor. The rulings of the courts, such as in regard to Aid to Families with Dependent Children, have progressively asserted welfare benefits as more akin to property rights than gratuities that could be withdrawn at will.

In Goldberg v. Kelly (397 U.S. 254), states were required to provide a particular recipient with “public assistance payments,” which “would satisfy the constitutional command” of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. Justice Brennan delivered the majority opinion of the Court and stated that “such benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.” His footnote to the opinion reflected his acceptance of the New Property theory: “It may be realistic today to regard welfare entitlements as more like ‘property’ than a ‘gratuity.’ Much of the existing wealth in the United States takes the form of rights that do not fall within traditional common-law concepts of property.” Determining that the due process clause provides protection to welfare recipients creates a unique dilemma as to the constitutional right of an individual to due process only if the state either hindered or periled the entitlement of the “laws of nature and of nature’s God.”

According to the Declaration of Independence, “all men are created equal [and are] endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” and any entitlement necessarily involves a consequential condition. The Declaration of Independence entitles every American to employ both property and talents according to choice, and the document also deems it obligatory not to violate the equal entitlements of others. However, there is no requirement to accomplish actions that are positive in nature for the benefit of others. Although the slogan “a chicken in every pot” has been attacked and exploited in the political realm, the statement helps illustrate this false notion of entitlement. The demand for a chicken in every pot would obligate someone else to provide the finances. If one person is entitled to a chicken in his or her empty pot, then one can demand the chicken, and someone else has a correlative obligation to provide such an entitlement.

Entitlement programs are normally operated initially on a limited basis, but they expand rapidly, which results in more federal spending. Entitlement programs are described generally as forming a safety net that must be accomplished through the labor of others. It would seem that entitlement to the pursuit of happiness almost certainly involves a provision for the enabling conditions, but this would not be in the context of distribution of material resources, which often impedes individual initiative and responsibility.

Bibliography:

Buchanan, James M. The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Davis, Martha F. Brutal Need: Lawyers and the Welfare Rights Movement, 1960–1973. New Haven, Conn.:Yale University Press, 1993.
Gilliom, John. Overseers of the Poor: Surveillance, Resistance, and the Limits of Privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.
Lyons, David, ed. Rights. Belmont, Calif.:Wadsworth, 1979.
Miller, David, ed. The Liberty Reader. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 2006.
Mink, Gwendolyn. Welfare’s End. Rev. ed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2002.
Murray, Charles. In Pursuit of Happiness and Good Government. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Rosenkranz, E. Joshua, and Bernard Schwartz, eds. Reason and Passion: Justice Brennan’s Enduring Influence. New York: Norton, 1997.
Rothbard, Murray. The Ethics of Liberty. Atlanta Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press, 1982.
Steiner, Hillel. An Essay on Rights. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987.
Williamson, John B., Diane M.Watts-Roy, and Eric R. Kingson, eds. The Generational Equity Debate. New York: Columbia University Press, 1999.