Entitlements

Entitlements have been defined as "the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program, as Social Security or unemployment compensation." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/entitlements

Now, in the present political climate, entitlements have been defined solely as above.  However, for the most part, we the taxpayers, have paid into the unemployment system, the Social Security system, the Medicare system.  So, in my eyes, these are not really entitlements, they are debts to be paid.  Much like I deposit money into the bank, the bank is holding the money for me and I get to with draw it according to our deposit contract.  Well, our government made a contract with us when it took money from our paychecks for these programs - that money would be there for us when we needed it when we retired.  Now the government wishes to change the terms of the contract mid-stream, again wishing to raise retirement age for those of us for whom it already raised the retirement age once, and to minimize the amounts paid out.  I agree there are problems that need fixing.  But taking away money from the taxpayers who entered into the contract, and played by the rules is not the way to go about it. For one thing, funds "stolen" by the government form the so-called "Social Security lockbox" to pay for other things need to be repaid immediately and the funds need to be invested responsibly to earn appropriate income to sustain Social Security.

But beyond these so-called entitlements, are entitlements that are never discussed and which must be cut first.  The first priority of a government is to protect its people; however, our federal government is taking money from its citizens, making promises to citizens that it breaks, and then sends our tax dollars all over the world to foreign countries, paying those countries entitlements - entitlements that I have yet to hear anyone talk about cutting (if they are discussing it, they seem to be discussing quietly or the mainstream media is not reporting it).  Take a look at the following link and scroll to the section captioned "Foreign Aid".    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/foreign_commerce_aid.html  There you will see things such as billions of dollars in "foreign grants, credits and military and foreign aid" granted over the past few decades.  Billions and billions, if not trillions of dollars spent overseas (much to countries that are not our best of friends) and no indication that it is paid back.   http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1296.pdf  See also the top ten countries to which aid was provided in 2009 and for which aid was requested in 2010 here:  http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2010/07/top-ten-us-foreign-aid-recipients.html 
As these are in millions of dollars, remember, that for Israel (for example only - I am not discussing the politics of aid to any specific country) in 2009, when it says $3,105, that means 3 billion, 105 million dollars. 
Why are we not cutting foreign aid/"entitlement" programs first, before we speak of cutting contractual obligations to the American taxpayer?   Please folks, ask your  representatives and Senators this question.  We need to take care of our taxpayers first; then if we can, help other nations.  Charity should begin at home, and way too many Americans are suffering and will suffer while we spend trillions of dollars overseas (without much thanks, might I add).

Note, I am proud of the USA for assisting Japan in its present crises.  That is what we are known for and we should continue to do.  However, unconstitutional wars (Congress did not declare war on Libya as required by the Constitution, although the President has ordered our military to bomb a sovereign nation, thereby committing an act of war) that are unfunded will continue to raise our deficit and, if allowed, destroy our Constitution bit by bit.

The People's President? I think not.

Just call me the Cranky Yankee (TM). I admit, I am rather cranky, but I certainly have a right to be.

Yesterday, the president of my college class, accessed personal college information in order to solicit campaign funds for the President of the United States.  Now, not only was that a violation of my privacy rights, it also opened my eyes to this President, who not only is seeking to create a campaign war chest of 1 billion dollars (Hey Mr. Prez, how about spending that time and effort raising a billion dollars to pay down the deficit, or to at least pay for the third war in which you unconstitutionally involved this country when you chose to bomb Libya - yes, bombing a sovereign nation is an act of war and only Congress can declare war (the President after congress declares war may only "wage war" - one would think a self-proclaimed "Constitutional Scholar" would know that).

Okay, moving past the invasion of my privacy rights by a misguided Obama admirer (somehow, I think that if Dinesh D'Souza  or Laura Ingraham, both alums of the same college, raided the college email banks to send out invitations to their candidate's soirees, all hell would break loose at the college, especially among the liberals) let's get to the invitation itself.  The event is being held at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in NYC, and the minimum donation is $2,500.  Hardly the small donations the President claims he raised for his campaign "war chest" for 2008.  Of course, if you wish to "donate" $100,000,  you buy yourself "Podium Acknowledgment, VIP reception, Photo Reception, Program Listing Dinner ".  Won't you feel special?  I particularly love the name of the fund:  "Obama Victory Fund 2012".  A little presumptuous in my book.  I'm having difficulties posting a copy of the invite here, but maybe I'll be able to post one soon.