The problem with entitlements/social safety net programs (how ever you want to spin it) is that they're policies that are predicated on the old generation being funded by a larger younger generation. That's policy that isn't fault tolerant to population decreases nor medical black swans.

I thought that they were called entitlements precisely because we pay for them.

I don't think that comes from where you think it does. I think it comes from the fact that people are literally entitled to that money via the legal contract we've set up - it is spoken for.

Too many mixed metaphors.

Aside from employees, .gov gives people money two ways:

1) Contracts. 200 F-22 for $100B or so. $1M for the service contract for that server for a year. Usually involves a psuedo competitive bidding process, a lack of one is unusual enough that you get the phrase "no bid contract" because its an oddity.

2) Entitlements. If you meet these requirements, you get this money, or income tax credit, or whatever. You're entitled as a member of a class where that class is poor dudes or historic property investors or hybrid car owner or whatever. Usually doesn't involve competitive bidding or auctions at all.

You're just going to confuse people by mixing contracts and entitlements in the same line.

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse. "Contract" is used metaphorically in relation to the government all the time, though. "Social contract", for example.

I don't think you get what a "dog whistle" is. Everyone calls them entitlements.

Everyone huh? Try Google-ing entitlements and racism.

I don't see the relevance. All I'm getting is a lot of criticism of some comment Scalia once made which seems to have nothing to do with whether things should be called entitlements.

Further, if that was somehow your point, bear in mind that "everyone" in this context is pretty clearly something like "the vast majority". I could find traces of evidence of people trying to redefine the term, sure, but no evidence they're being particularly successful. Even the NYT calls them entitlements with no apparent irony. Call them mainstream or call them leftist, either way, it's evidence on my side.

Entitlements are simply something people are legally entitled to.

No one thinks that entitlements Social Security and Medicare go predominantly to minorities and a lazy underclass, and yet they're the biggest parts of our budget. (Some people do, however, labor under the impression that SS and Medicare make up 5% of the budget and the remaining 95% goes to welfare, foreign aid, and greedy public employees, but that's another issue entirely.)

You're partially right about the dog whistle, but the literal meaning of 'entitlement' is that you have title to something, ie a legal right of ownership and it is the correct technical term for these payments, notwithstanding the secondary political meaning (of false entitlement) that has been attached to it.

It looks like it's mostly medical costs. Social Security and other such things haven't increased much.

I wouldn't say spending on entitlement programs are an issue, they're more of a symptom. IMO, the root cause of our economic stagnation is our government's inability to create policy that is efficient, thoughtful, and timely. The inherently conservative features found in the structure western-style democracies are increasingly becoming an anchor on societal progress. Our governments aren't "conservative" in the ideological sense but in the slow, methodical manner in which change is meant to flow through the system.

I keep getting stuck on what I've learned of "lean" manufacturing principles and how hard it was for businesses to adapt to a more responsive and adaptive model of operations. Industrial behemoths could plod along, surviving off the enormous inertia they'd built over the decades. Some fell while others are still plodding along, yet unchallenged by efficient competitors that can't clear the entry barriers of the market, time will still come for them.

Governments are behemoths of a much more impressive scale. Their size lets them wield tools that no business is large enough to hold (monetary policy, "monopoly of violence"). Unfortunately inertia will always be overcome by time and friction in the form of a century of inefficient policy.

The fix isn't going to be found in dropping all forms of welfare or by jacking up tax rates to cover the continuing expenses of such programs, it will be found through guided reform. We need to base policy on facts and economic "facts" aren't universal, they're marginal and we need much more information and real world date to find those margins.

In my opinion the US needs a few big picture changes in order to start making informed policy reforms:

- States need to be given the room for experimentation that was intended our nations founders. The scientific approach to any problem requires a control group and when the federal government attempts to monopolize control at every level there's no room for comparison.

- To that point, there are many problems that can only be approached at a national level. The areas of defense, common natural resources, border controls, and interstate disputes of all types were wisely enshrined in the constitution as the domain of the federal government. While I'd like to hand as much power to the states as possible and others would like to handle things like healthcare at a purely national level, I think the wise approach would involve studying the international picture before jumping to any conclusions. Looking internationally we'd find that universal and mixed systems can be equally successful. Universal national systems (NHS), regional systems (Canada's provincial system), privately weighted mixed systems (Malaysia), and publicly weighted mixed systems (Germany) are all able to produce better outcomes than our attempt at a mixed system. So we must study, experiment and design, maybe we'd find that a provincial system would work best, maybe a national single payer system would work but despite years of debate we've ended up arguing over ideology. Ultimately we must have a system of reasoned debate and a legislative process capable of enacting the well-validated policy.

- Our electoral processes have resulted in a deeply divided, highly ideological country. There's no structural roadblock standing in the way of implementing well-researched policy as I've described, there are only political barriers. I can't think of a quick fix capable of changing millions of minds but I know that any slow shift like this degradation of political discourse can be reversed at the same slow pace. The solution is something that should have always been in the federal domain and that's our disjointed, uncoordinated redistricting processes. Centuries of gerrymandering have resulted in a map of districts engineered entirely for the purpose of furthering a party's political machine. The bent geography necessary for ensuring the "safety" of congressional seats is just a hair above the line of credibility if we are to consider our government "representative". The lack of fair demographic representation boxes us all in to neat little bubbles of ideology where few of us are allowed to express our political will in the face of an overwhelming majority opposition. We're the only country where districts are drawn by the interested parties and this needs to change. I believe it will push people out of their bubbles and hopefully bring about a stronger culture of political debate.

I have a few other ideas that are much less feasible but my tl;dr is that we need to start fostering a less divisive culture that will be receptive to taking a scientific approach to policy. Otherwise the lumbering dinosaurs called western democracies are going to fall so behind the curve that failure will become the only option.